Information Paper 25 Edit

South Australian

PARLIAMENT RESEARCH LIBRARY

Results of the Federal election of 2007 applied to South Australian State seats

by Jenni Newton-Farrelly

Research Paper No 3 26 February 2008

Not to be reproduced in part or whole without the written permission of, or acknowledgement to, the South Australian Parliament Research Library.

This Research Paper has been prepared by the Research Service of the South Australian Parliament Research Library. While all care has been taken to ensure that the material is both accurate and clearly presented, the responsibility for any errors remains with the author.

ISSN 0816-4282

Introduction

At the Federal election of 24 November 2007, the ALP won the support of the majority of voters across Australia, won a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives and formed government.

In South Australia, ALP candidates won 52.4% of the two party preferred vote, and won 6 of the State’s 11 House of Representatives seats. ALP sitting Members retained Port Adelaide, Hindmarsh and Adelaide, and ALP candidates won Kingston, Wakefield and Makin. Liberal sitting Members retained Boothby, Sturt, Mayo, Grey and Barker.

This paper looks at the 2007 result, but within the geographic areas of the State House of Assembly seats. It also looks at the result of several previous State and Federal elections within those same boundaries, that is, within the current State seats. To do this, it draws on a resource which has been gradually built up by the Parliament Research Library, which is a database of the election results for each booth at each State and Federal election in South Australia since 1993.

While Federal and State issues are different, the campaigns are different and the candidates are different, the voters are not. At each election, the same people queue at booths to register their choices.

The following tables show how voters in each of the current State seats, have voted at the State and Federal elections since 1993. These figures summarise much larger time series tables which have been compiled within the Parliament Research Library and which are available through the Parliamentary Intranet. The original tables show the results at booth levels; this paper does not go to that level of detail but it does provide some commentary on the results.

Overview of the 2007 Federal election results in South Australia.

At the Federal election of 24 November 2007 the ALP won the support of the majority of voters across South Australia. This was not unexpected as opinion polls throughout the year had been fairly uniformly predicting a win to Labor. What had been more difficult to anticipate was the level of support that the ALP would achieve and how this would translate into seats.

It has been said for some years that in South Australia the ALP has been more popular at State elections, and the Liberal Party has been more popular at Federal elections. This is shown quite clearly in the following table, which summarises each party’s share of the vote (first preference votes and two party preferred votes) in South Australia at State and Federal elections since the State election of 1993.1 The series starts with the State Bank election of 1993 which was such an unusual election that it is debatable whether it should be included in the series at all, but it is probably as low a vote for the ALP as we will see and so it does provide a reference point. The next reference point is the 1996 Federal election which was a strong election for the Liberal Party; indeed it was the beginning of the Howard Liberal Government, and we might see that as another benchmark – in this case a high point for the Federal Liberal results. The third reference point in this series is the State election of 2006 which is a high point for the ALP, and finally of course the Federal election of 2007 which is the focus of this paper.

Table 1: Parties’ share of the vote at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007.

Election First preference votes Two party ALP LIB DEM Greens NAT Family Other ALL preferred result First parties IND ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 30.4 52.8 9.1 0.3 1.1 1.9 4.5 39.1 60.9 Federal 1996 34.8 50.0 10.2 2.9 1.0 1.1 42.7 57.3 State 1997 35.2 40.4 16.4 0.2 1.7 1.7 4.3 48.5 51.5 Federal 1998 34.5 42.1 10.1 0.5 0.5 10.9 1.4 46.9 53.1 Federal 2001 33.7 45.9 10.5 3.6 5.2 1.0 45.9 54.1 State 2002 36.3 40.0 7.5 2.4 1.5 2.6 5.0 4.8 49.1 50.9 Federal 2004 36.8 47.4 1.9 5.4 1.0 4.3 1.2 2.0 45.6 54.4 State 2006 45.2 34.0 2.9 6.5 2.1 5.9 0.7 2.7 56.8 43.2 Federal 2007 43.2 41.7 1.5 7.0 1.3 4.1 0.6 0.7 52.4 47.6

SOURCE: official results from the State Electoral Office and the Australian Electoral Commission.

Table 1 shows that at the Federal election of 2007 the level of support for the ALP, as measured by the two party preferred vote, was 52.4%, a swing of 6.8 percentage points across South Australia since the Federal election of 2004. That swing has

1 Time series tables for each State electorate are available on the Parliamentary Intranet under the Library’s headings, or on request from the Library. The series starts with the 1993 State election because that is the first election for which we have two party preferred counts for each booth.

2 been described as a “landslide” and it is certainly a very strong swing, but we should perhaps think of it as a catch-up result too, as the level of support for the ALP at the most recent State election was even stronger, at 56.8%.

So the 2007 result was not a high point for the ALP vote in South Australia – indeed if voters had expressed themselves in exactly the same way when the most recent State election was held in 2006, the ALP would have won 27 seats, not 28, and Bright would have remained a Liberal seat.

Adelaide

The current State seat of Adelaide takes in North Adelaide as well as the CBD and sits entirely within the Federal electorate of Adelaide. While the seat as a whole has been marginal for many years, it covers areas which are traditionally strongly oriented towards the ALP (most of the CBD booths and the Prospect booths) as well as areas which are traditionally strongly oriented towards the Liberal Party (North Adelaide and Walkerville). The State seat of Adelaide fits entirely within the Federal seat of Adelaide. The area is represented in the State Parliament by the Member for Adelaide Dr Jane Lomax-Smith (ALP) who won the seat from the LIB Member in 2002, and in the Federal Parliament by the ALP Member for Adelaide Kate Ellis.

Table 2: How the voters within the current State seat of Adelaide voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Two party Election First preference votes (booth votes only) preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result (booth + dec First parties IND votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 27.5 57.9 9.3 5.2 36.9 63.1 Federal 1996 34.7 50.7 8.4 3.1 1.3 1.8 43.6 56.4 State 1997 32.7 44.7 16.8 5.4 0.4 46.6 53.4 Federal 1998 33.8 47.1 10.1 3.7 4.8 0.5 44.3 55.7 Federal 2001 33.0 46.5 11.5 7.5 1.6 46.6 53.4 State 2002 40.4 43.1 5.4 5.2 1.5 4.1 0.3 50.4 49.6 Federal 2004 39.3 46.7 1.7 9.5 1.5 1.5 49.4 50.6 State 2006 48.0 33.8 2.7 9.3 2.7 2.2 1.4 60.2 39.8 Federal 2007 43.9 41.6 1.6 11.3 1.6 55.1 44.9

SOURCE: my calculations based on the official results of the State elections of 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2006 from the State Electoral Office, and official results from the Federal elections of 1996, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007, from the Australian Electoral Commission.

Within this State seat, the ALP first preference vote has generally been higher at State than at Federal elections although this was not the case in 1993 which was a dreadful result for the ALP across the State. In 1997 the ALP was recovering and it seems clear that in the seat of Adelaide that recovery was mediated by an increase in support for the Democrats. The relatively high level of support for the Democrats ten years ago came from voters who had previously voted for LIB candidates as well as from voters who had previously voted for ALP candidates, and perhaps the current (historically) high level of support for the Greens draws from both parties too, but one thing is apparent from these tables – when the Democrats were really

3 popular ten years ago they and the Greens won the first preference votes of nearly a quarter of the voters; today that support is halved.

The swing to the ALP at this last Federal election was achieved at the expense of the LIB vote, not the vote for smaller parties. The LIB share of the first preference vote at the Federal election of 2007 fell from 46.7% of all first preference votes in 2004 to 41.6% of first preferences in 2007 – a fall of 5.1 percentage points. Most of these votes went to the ALP, and the ALP candidate increased her share of the first preference vote by 4.6 percentage points (from 39.3% of all first preference votes in 2004 to 43.9% in 2007). There were also a few first preferences that the LIB candidates lost which did not end up with the ALP, and these went to the minor parties – mostly to the Greens.

When preferences were distributed, the 4.6 percentage point rise in the ALP candidate’s share of the first preference vote was amplified and became a rise of 5.7 percentage points in the two party preferred vote, in part at least because the Greens sent 80% of their preferences to the ALP candidate. The ALP 2PP vote increased from 49.4% across this area in 2004, to 55.1% in 2007, showing that the voters of the Adelaide State electorate would have strongly endorsed a Federal ALP Member for their area.

Given that there was a swing to the ALP of 6.8 percentage points across the State in 2PP terms and 7.2 across the Federal seat of Adelaide, the swing in Adelaide was not outstandingly strong, but it did come on top of a strong swing in 2004 (5.7 percentage points). Still, the highpoint for the ALP vote in this area remains the State election of 2006, not the Federal election of 2007. At that State election of 2006 the first preference swing was stronger (7.6 percentage points, not 4.6) and the swing once preferences were distributed was stronger too (9.8 percentage points not 5.7, from an ALP 2PP of 50.4% in 2002 to an ALP 2PP of 60.2% in 2006). And the ALP 2PP result was 60.2%, another 5.1 percentage points higher than the Federal result over these same booths.

Ashford

The State seat of Ashford sits south-west of the city of Adelaide, running from the parklands to Plympton along Anzac Highway. It is bisected by South Road, which forms a boundary between the Federal seats of Adelaide and Hindmarsh. About a third of the voters in Ashford live in the suburbs on the city side of South Road in the Federal seat of Adelaide, with the remaining two thirds living in the suburbs on the western side of South Road in the Federal seat of Hindmarsh. Another very small group living in Clarence Gardens (3% or about 600 voters) are in the Federal seat of Boothby.

The area is represented in the State Parliament by the ALP State Member for Ashford, Steph Key, who won the seat from the LIB Member in 1997, and in the Federal Parliament by the ALP Members for Adelaide (Kate Ellis) and for Hindmarsh (Steve Georganas) and by the LIB Member for Boothby (Andrew Southcott).

Ashford voters have made this an ALP seat since 1997 (the 2PP figures have been consistently, if sometimes only marginally, ALP).

The first preference figures show that LIB candidates have consistently received more support at Federal elections than at State elections, but ALP support has been growing steadily, regardless of whether the election has been for the State or the Federal government.

Table 3: How the voters within the current State seat of Ashford voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 37.4 49.9 8.1 1.5 3.1 45.4 54.6 Federal 1996 38.7 48.2 7.9 2.5 0.6 2.0 45.8 54.2 State 1997 30.4 34.4 11.5 3.3 20.5 52.5 47.5 Federal 1998 41.0 40.6 8.6 2.7 6.9 0.2 50.5 49.5 Federal 2001 39.7 42.0 10.9 4.4 2.9 0.1 51.4 48.6 State 2002 41.3 37.1 9.2 5.2 2.9 4.3 53.7 46.3 Federal 2004 45.4 41.7 1.8 6.8 2.3 0.4 1.7 53.9 46.1 State 2006 54.3 26.5 4.5 8.8 4.9 1.0 66.1 33.9 Federal 2007 51.1 34.7 1.6 9.1 2.1 0.7 0.7 60.7 39.3

The swing to the ALP at this last Federal election was achieved at the expense of the LIB vote, not the vote for smaller parties. The LIB share of the first preference vote fell by 7.0 percentage points (from 41.7% of all first preference votes in 2004 to 34.7% in 2007). The ALP candidates won quite a lot of this, increasing their share of the first preference vote by 5.7 percentage points (from 41.3% of first preferences in 2004 to 51.1% of all first preferences in 2007), and the remaining 1.3 percentage points went to the Greens.

When preferences were distributed the swing of 5.7 percentage points was amplified by the Greens’ votes into a swing of 6.8 percentage points. The ALP two party preferred result in the end was 60.7%. This was the strongest ALP result in the area at a Federal election for at least the period covered by these tables. Still there is scope for another swing yet. The ALP result achieved by the State sitting Member Steph Key at the State election of 2006 is another 5.6 percentage points higher again.

The swing to Labor at the State election in 2006 in Ashford was roughly twice as strong as this most recent result in 2007. The ALP share of first preference votes increased in 2006 by 13 percentage points (compared to 5.7 at the Federal election) and once preferences were distributed the swing was 12.4 percentage points on a 2PP basis (compared to 6.8 at the Federal election). The result was that the 2PP outcome in the seat was 66.1% for the ALP in 2006 compared to 60.7% at the Federal election.

Bragg

The State seat of Bragg is an eastern suburbs seat starting at the parklands and extending into the foothills, with a very strong Liberal orientation at both Federal and State elections. The Bragg suburbs closest to the city (Rose Park and Dulwich) hold about 20% of all Bragg voters and are within the Federal seat of Adelaide, but just

5 over 80% of Bragg’s voters live in the Federal seat of Sturt. The seat is represented in the State Parliament by the LIB Member for Bragg, Vickie Chapman, who took over the seat from the retiring LIB Member in 2002 and in the Federal Parliament by the ALP Member for Adelaide (Kate Ellis) and the LIB Member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne.

Table 4: How the voters within the current State seat of Bragg voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 13.9 75.7 8.2 2.2 0.1 19.3 80.7 Federal 1996 18.8 70.3 8.2 2.1 0.6 24.3 75.7 State 1997 20.0 61.5 17.9 0.2 0.4 30.0 70.0 Federal 1998 20.2 64.8 10.1 4.2 0.6 26.4 73.6 Federal 2001 19.5 64.2 9.5 3.9 1.5 1.2 29.3 70.7 State 2002 21.2 61.8 10.4 2.8 3.9 30.4 69.6 Federal 2004 26.4 62.1 1.9 6.8 2.3 0.4 0.1 33.6 66.4 State 2006 27.3 55.5 4.2 9.2 3.8 37.2 62.8 Federal 2007 32.1 58.3 1.0 6.8 1.5 0.2 38.1 61.9

With the exception of the 1993 State election, the vote for LIB candidates has been a little stronger at Federal elections than at State elections in this area, although the difference is small.

At this most recent Federal election in 2007, the ALP share of the first preference vote in Bragg increased by 5.7 percentage points (from 26.4% of all first preference votes in 2004 to 32.1% in 2007). Only two thirds of this (3.8 percentage points) came from a decline in the LIB vote and nearly a third (1.9 percentage points) came from the Democrats and Family First, which is quite remarkable given the relative sizes of the LIB vote and the minor party vote.

Once preferences were distributed, the 5.7 percentage point swing towards the ALP was reduced somewhat to a two party preferred swing of 4.5 percentage points towards the ALP, and the ALP 2PP vote increased from 33.6% in 2004 to 38.1% in 2007.

By comparison, at the State election of 2006 the ALP share of first preferences increased by 6.1 percentage points (from 21.2% of first preferences in 2002 to 27.3% in 2006) and all of that increase came from people who had previously voted LIB. The LIB share of first preferences dropped by 6.3 percentage points, from 61.8% to 55.5% in 2006.

So what happened at the Federal election of 2007 was quite similar to what happened at the State election of 2006: there was a fall in support for the LIB candidates and almost all of those votes transferred directly across to the ALP. This

6 might seem absolutely obvious but it is not necessarily what happened in other seats. And in Bragg the size of the swings was a bit below average at both elections (in 2006 the average swing across the State was 7.7% to the ALP and in Bragg it was 6.8%; in 2007 the average swing was 6.8% to the ALP and in Bragg it was 4.5%).

Bright

Bright is a long beach-side seat focussed on several southern metropolitan beach centres – Brighton, Hallett Cove and O’Sullivan Beach. The northern-most suburbs of Bright are quite strongly oriented towards the Liberal Party and the seat becomes more Labor-oriented as it moves south. The only election since 1993 at which this area has returned an ALP win has been the 2006 election when the ALP candidate Chloe Fox won the seat from the Liberal Party.

The seat is divided neatly into two by the boundary between the Federal seats of Boothby (which takes in the northern, Brighton-oriented suburbs) and Kingston (which takes in Hallett Cove and O’Sullivan Beach). Just over half of the Bright voters live in Boothby and the other half live in Kingston. The area is represented in the State Parliament by the ALP State Member for Bright, Chloe Fox, who won the seat from the LIB Member in 2006, and in the Federal Parliament by the ALP Member for Kingston (Amanda Rishworth) and the LIB Member for Boothby (Andrew Southcott).

Table 5: How the voters within the current State seat of Bright voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens FAMILY Other ALL result FIRST parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 25.9 62.0 11.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 33.3 66.7 Federal 1996 34.0 50.7 10.5 1.7 0.9 41.4 58.6 State 1997 32.1 45.9 20.7 0.1 1.2 45.5 54.5 Federal 1998 34.6 46.0 10.0 8.2 1.2 44.5 55.5 Federal 2001 31.9 46.9 13.5 3.2 4.0 0.5 44.8 55.2 State 2002 33.4 45.1 7.9 4.6 2.9 4.1 2.0 45.1 54.9 Federal 2004 38.7 49.2 1.8 6.0 3.5 0.7 0.3 45.5 54.5 State 2006 50.2 34.9 1.8 6.2 4.3 2.5 0.0 59.3 40.7 Federal 2007 39.4 45.7 1.0 7.7 2.8 0.3 3.1 48.6 51.4

Although Bright was won by Labor at the State election of 2006 with an emphatic result, it had been a marginal Liberal seat, and remains a marginal Liberal seat on the basis of the Federal vote.

In terms of first preference votes, Bright is particularly interesting. Looking at the Federal results, the biggest swing to the ALP occurred in 2004. In 2004 the ALP share of the first preference vote increased by 6.8 percentage points from 31.9% of all first preferences in 2001 to 38.7% of first preference votes, and this had been

7 achieved mostly at the expense of the Democrat vote, not the Liberal vote at all (the LIB first preference vote also increased at the same time by 2.3 percentage points). By comparison, the result at the most recent Federal election was interesting for other reasons.

In 2007 there was a drop of 3.5 percentage points in the LIB share of the first preference vote (from 49.2% in 2004 to 45.7% in 2007). These votes were not attracted directly across to the ALP – the ALP share of the first preference vote rose by just 0.7 percentage points, from 38.7% in 2004 to 39.4% in 2007. So the fall in the LIB vote was not because those voters were attracted to the ALP, but rather because the voters were disaffected with the LIB candidate or campaign or government. The available previously-LIB votes made their way to the Greens, IND candidates and the other minor parties.

When preferences are distributed in 2007, the ALP 2PP result was 48.6%, a swing of just 3.1 percentage points towards the ALP compared to the result at the Federal election of 2004. To large extent the relatively small swing in Bright was a function of the unexpectedly small swing in Boothby – in the Bright booths within Kingston the swing to the ALP at the Federal election was 4.6%, whereas in the Bright booths within Boothby the swing was only 1.9% to the ALP.

This is almost the complete opposite of what happened in the area at the State election of 2006. At that election the LIB share of the first preference vote declined by 10.2 percentage points (a much bigger fall than the 3.5 percentage point drop in 2007) and all of those votes went to the ALP. The ALP vote increased by a massive 16.8 percentage points but the LIB vote could only supply 10.8 percentage points of those so the rest were won away from the minor parties. The minor parties lost 6.7 percentage points which means that roughly one in three people who voted for minor party candidates in 2002 changed their minds and voted ALP in 2006.

When preferences were distributed in 2006, the ALP 2PP vote was 59.3%, a massive swing towards the ALP of 14.2 percentage points on the State election of 2002.

So Bright is truly a study in contrasts.

We should also note that Bright shows many trends that are apparent in seats across the State. As in many seats, the ALP first preference vote has been growing over the period (although in Bright the LIB vote has not been weakening markedly), and the Greens have been strengthening their vote as the Democrat vote has been declining.

The size of the current ALP majority in this seat makes it difficult to see it as anything other than a fairly safe Labor seat but we should recognise that the 2006 State election result is predicated on the support of voters who have consistently voted for LIB and minor party candidates.

Chaffey

This seat covers all of the major centres in the Riverland and the supporting districts. It is one of two State seats in South Australia where there is a three-sided competition at both State and Federal levels, between candidates for the ALP, the Liberal Party and the National Party.2

Karlene Maywald has represented Chaffey in the State Parliament since she won the seat from the LIB sitting Member in 1997, but at the Federal level the seat has been

2 The other seat is Flinders.

8 part of larger seats represented by Liberal Party Members. Chaffey is located entirely within the Federal seat of Barker (represented in the Federal Parliament by the LIB Member Patrick Secker) but until 2001 it was within Wakefield, also a traditionally Liberal seat.

Chaffey is a clear example of a seat where the candidate is terribly important. At the State level the NAT candidate has won at the last three State elections, and indeed at the last two elections has won the seat outright with a majority of the first preference votes. But only half of the people who have been giving Karlene Maywald their first preference vote at State elections have also supported the NAT candidates at Federal elections.

At the most recent Federal election the ALP vote was 40.4% on a two party preferred basis. There was a two party preferred swing of 9.9 percentage points towards the ALP, when the ALP 2PP vote increased from 30.5% in 2004 to 40.4% in 2007. This was a much stronger result for the ALP than at the State election of 2006 when the 2PP result for the ALP was only 28.2%. The reason seems to be that at State elections the NAT candidate (Maywald) draws voters away from the ALP as well as from the LIB candidate, and when the NAT votes are rethrown to give us a two party preferred result for the seat they would mostly boost the LIB candidate’s vote rather than the ALP candidate’s share.

Table 6: How the voters within the current State seat of Chaffey voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred result

ALP LIB NAT Other ALL (booth + dec votes) parties IND ALP LIB ALP NAT LIB NAT (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 8.1 41.2 24.0 1.4 25.3 Federal 1996 22.0 64.9 13.1 27.3 72.7 State 1997 13.6 41.4 38.3 6.7 29.0 71.0 36.8 63.2 47.4 52.6 Federal 1998 19.5 53.3 3.0 21.7 2.4 30.3 69.7 Federal 2001 22.5 61.2 16.4 31.2 68.8 State 2002 12.0 30.8 50.0 7.2 28.7 71.3 19.1 80.9 36.0 64.0 Federal 2004 19.3 41.3 26.6 11.6 1.2 30.5 69.5 State 2006 9.5 28.4 53.2 8.9 28.2 71.8 32.8 67.2 Federal 2007 25.0 37.7 25.3 12.1 40.4 59.6

Because there are three different options for the two candidate preferred counts for Chaffey, there is insufficient space to include all of the first preference results. Hence, the results for DEM, Family First and Greens have been amalgamated with all other parties (e.g. One Nation) under the one “Other parties” heading.

Chaffey is a strongly conservative seat in the sense that the voters have preferred either a NAT or a LIB candidate to any other party candidate (or IND candidate). When ballot papers have been rethrown to show the voters’ preferences the result has consistently been that voters would prefer the seat to be represented by the National Party Member, or by a Liberal candidate and lastly by an ALP candidate.

9 Nonetheless, the ALP achieved a strong swing at the most recent Federal election, at the expense of LIB votes and with the support of NAT voters’ preferences. In terms of first preference votes, support for the ALP increased by 5.7 percentage points from 19.3% to 25% (from 2004 to 2007). Looking at first preferences won by each party, support for the National Party candidates did not waver and support for the minor parties stayed relatively constant, so the swing is apparently a case of people who had voted LIB at the previous Federal election in 2004 changing their minds and transferring their votes directly across to the ALP. This may seem unusual for a safe conservative seat but it looks like there is a group of people who have been happy to vote LIB at the Federal level but NAT at State elections, and some of these people changed their minds recently and gave their first preference vote to the ALP.

Once the preferences of NAT and minor party voters were distributed, the 5.7 percentage point swing towards the ALP in first preferences was leveraged into almost a 10 percentage point swing (the ALP 2PP vote in 2004 was 30.5% and in 2007 it was 40.4%).

Given this variety of choices for voters in Chaffey, it is interesting to see that at the 2007 Federal election the LIB candidate retained the largest share of first preferences (37.7%) and then both the ALP candidate and the NAT candidate won roughly the same support (25% and 25.3% respectively of first preference votes). Given that ALP preferences would be likely to flow to the NAT candidate before LIB, if either of these two parties manage to increase their support (from LIB or from the minor parties who still hold 12% of first preferences) the seat will become safer for the National Party. Whether that would translate into a NAT candidate winning the Federal seat would depend on the level of support in the other areas covered by Barker.

Cheltenham

Table 7: How the voters within the current State seat of Cheltenham voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 47.1 39.4 6.9 4.5 2.0 55.7 44.3 Federal 1996 49.0 36.8 9.4 4.2 0.6 57.4 42.6 State 1997 55.7 24.7 15.5 0.4 3.7 66.7 33.3 Federal 1998 54.9 24.0 9.0 9.1 3.1 67.3 32.7 Federal 2001 53.0 27.9 9.8 3.6 4.9 0.8 66.3 33.7 State 2002 48.6 23.6 6.6 3.0 6.3 11.9 66.7 33.3 Federal 2004 56.6 30.3 1.7 5.2 5.1 1.2 64.1 35.9 State 2006 63.2 16.8 4.5 5.7 9.8 75.5 24.5 Federal 2007 58.5 25.0 2.2 8.8 5.5 69.1 30.9

10 Cheltenham is a compact inner-western suburbs electorate which focuses on Woodville. It is not an affluent seat. It is a strongly Labor-oriented seat and has been represented by ALP Members at both State and Federal level for longer than this time series covers. It falls entirely within the Port Adelaide Federal seat. The Member for Cheltenham in the State Parliament is Jay Weatherill, who won the seat in 2002 when the sitting ALP Member contested the seat as an IND. In the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the Member for Port Adelaide, Mark Butler (ALP).

In Cheltenham, ALP candidates have consistently won the seat on first preferences alone, at both State and Federal elections. Support for ALP candidates has been a little stronger at State elections than at Federal polls, and voters have been inclined to support the LIB candidates a little more strongly at Federal elections than at State elections.

At the most recent Federal election in 2007, the ALP candidates achieved only a small increase in their share of the first preference vote – just 2.1 percentage points (from 56.6% of all first preferences in 2004 to 58.5% in 2007). Once preferences of minor party candidates were distributed the two party preferred swing was stronger, at 5 percentage points. Still, when the average swing across the Federal seat of Port Adelaide was 6.9 percentage points, and when the swing in this area at the State election of 2006 was 8.8 percentage points, the Federal result was not a resounding one, even given that the ALP candidate was replacing a retiring Member. What is perhaps more telling is that the LIB candidates’ share of the first preference vote dropped from the Federal election of 2004 to the next Federal election in 2007 by 5.3 percentage points but fewer than half of these voters transferred across to the ALP – the Greens benefited more than the ALP did.

What happened at the State election of 2006 was quite different. The ALP share of first preference votes increased by 14.6 percentage points (compared to an increase of just 2.1 percentage points at the Federal election in 2007). And when preferences were distributed the two party preferred result for the ALP was 75.5%, a swing towards the ALP of 8.8 percentage points on the 2002 election result, whereas the swing in 2007 was just 5.3 percentage points.

So big swings are quite possible in this area – they just didn’t happen at the Federal election of 2007. The ALP high point in this area is still quite clearly the State result for 2006, of 75.5% on a 2PP basis.

Colton

The State seat of Colton is a compact sea-side metropolitan seat taking in Henley Beach and Grange and then the suburbs behind them as far inland as Kidman Park. Almost all of Colton’s voters live in the Federal electorate of Hindmarsh, but there is a small area (part of Findon and part of Seaton) that is in the Federal electorate of Port Adelaide. The Member for Colton in the State Parliament is Paul Caica (ALP) who won the seat in 2002 from the LIB Member, and in the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the ALP Members for Hindmarsh (Steve Georganas) and for Port Adelaide (Mark Butler).

About 86% of the voters in Colton live in the Federal seat of Hindmarsh, and the remainder live in the Federal seat of Port Adelaide. For the first part of this time series Colton voters preferred LIB candidates at both State and Federal elections, but the ALP have won the support of the voters in this seat since the Federal election of 2001.

Table 8: How the voters within the current State seat of Colton voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 26.7 46.0 4.5 0.6 2.2 20.0 40.5 59.5 Federal 1996 37.1 50.2 8.2 2.5 0.5 1.5 44.0 56.0 State 1997 35.9 39.6 12.8 11.6 48.7 51.3 Federal 1998 41.9 39.9 8.2 2.2 6.8 1.0 50.9 49.1 Federal 2001 40.2 43.6 9.0 3.7 3.2 0.2 50.3 49.7 State 2002 41.7 39.2 4.2 5.4 2.3 1.7 5.6 54.2 45.8 Federal 2004 44.5 44.4 1.5 4.8 2.1 0.5 2.1 51.5 48.5 State 2006 59.0 28.9 2.7 5.6 3.9 66.3 33.7 Federal 2007 48.5 39.6 1.7 6.8 2.3 0.6 55.8 44.2

At the most recent Federal election in 2007, the ALP share of first preference votes in Colton rose from 44.5% in 2004 to 48.5%, a rise of 4 percentage points. At the same time the LIB share of first preference votes dropped by 4.8 percentage points (from 44.4% in 2004 to 39.6% in 2007). There seems to have been a quite direct transfer of votes from LIB to the ALP in 2007.

When preferences were distributed, this 4 percentage point rise in first preferences for the ALP candidates translated quite neatly into a two party preferred swing of 4.3 percentage points. The ALP 2PP result was 55.8% in 2007, compared to the 2004 result of 51.5%.

Given that most of the Colton voters live in Hindmarsh, and that the 2PP swing in Hindmarsh averaged 5 percentage points, this swing of 4.3 percentage points was reasonable. But it is tiny when we see what happened in this area in 2006.

At the State election of 2006, the ALP share of first preferences increased by 17.3 percentage points (compared to 4 in 2007). The LIB share of first preferences dropped by 10.3 percentage points and another 7 percentage points were won from the minor parties, which is an incredible swing given the size of the minor party vote. Roughly one in every 4 LIB voters and one in every 3 minor party voters changed their minds and voted ALP in 2006. When preferences were distributed the two party preferred vote for the ALP stood at 66.3% in 2006, a swing of 12.1 percentage points to the ALP (compared to the swing of 4.3 in 2007).

The result in Colton looks very much like the result in Cheltenham: Big swings can happen in this area and they did in 2006, but not in 2007.

Croydon

The State seat of Croydon is a compact western-suburbs seat, not affluent and traditionally Labor-oriented. Roughly 50% of Croydon voters live in the Federal seat of Port Adelaide, 20% in Hindmarsh and 30% in Adelaide. The ALP Member for

12 Croydon in the State Parliament is Michael Atkinson, who took over the seat from the retiring ALP Member in 1989, and the area is represented in the Federal Parliament by the ALP Members for Port Adelaide (Mark Butler), Hindmarsh (Steve Georganas) and Adelaide (Kate Ellis).

Table 9: How the voters within the current State seat of Croydon voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 47.4 37.9 6.7 0.6 3.2 4.0 57.1 42.9 Federal 1996 50.1 35.5 8.5 3.0 0.8 2.1 58.7 41.3 State 1997 64.3 23.3 12.3 71.8 28.2 Federal 1998 54.0 26.7 8.5 1.8 7.7 1.3 65.0 35.0 Federal 2001 52.4 29.3 9.4 4.8 3.8 0.3 64.7 35.3 State 2002 61.3 24.3 7.4 5.0 2.0 69.0 31.0 Federal 2004 55.1 32.2 1.6 6.4 3.2 0.5 1.0 63.6 36.4 State 2006 68.3 18.8 3.7 9.1 76.1 23.9 Federal 2007 59.3 26.2 1.6 9.3 3.3 0.1 0.1 69.4 30.6

At the most recent Federal election the LIB share of the first preference vote in this area dropped by 6 percentage points, from 32.2% of all first preference votes in 2004 to just 26.2% in 2007. But the ALP share only increased by 4.2 percentage points (from 55.1% of all first preference votes in 2004 to 59.3% in 2007) and the remaining 1.8 percentage points went to the minor parties. This indicates that some of the Croydon LIB voters were attracted to the ALP position and quite a few were disaffected with the LIB position, and so there was not a complete transfer of votes from LIB to the ALP.

The minor parties’ vote was relatively stable overall but within that group the Greens consistently won a larger share when they ran a candidate.

By contrast, at the State election of 2006, the LIB first preference vote dropped by 5.5 percentage points (from 24.3% of all first preferences in 2002 to just 18.8% in 2006) and the ALP vote increased by more than that. The ALP share of first preferences increased by 7 percentage points, drawing votes not only from former LIB voters but also from people who had previously voted for minor parties.

While the swings in 2007 were on a par with those achieved at the State election in 2006, the high point for the ALP vote in this area is still the ALP two party preferred result at the 2006 State election of 76.1%. That was achieved with a swing of 7.1 percentage points in 2006, and the 2007 Federal result saw a comparable swing of 6.2 percentage points in these booths, but the Federal result started from a lower base so there is still scope for improvement in the ALP vote at Federal elections in this area.

Like many electorates across the State, Croydon shows a gradual strengthening of the ALP vote over the period and a weakening of the LIB vote. And as with most

13 other electorates the Greens have been gradually building up their vote, seemingly from the DEM support base.

Croydon is interesting though, in that even though the area is represented at the Federal level by ALP Members, voters in Croydon have made a distinction between Federal and State elections and the LIB share of first preferences has been stronger at Federal elections. Or perhaps, in this case, it would make more sense to say that the ALP share is stronger at State elections.

Davenport

Table 10: How the voters within the current State seat of Davenport voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) DEM ALP LIB /IND LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 13.4 61.1 22.6 0.3 1.4 1.3 27.1 72.9 Federal 1996 25.8 55.9 14.4 3.2 0.5 0.2 35.9 64.1 State 1997 23.4 48.2 20.5 0.0 7.9 37.0 63.0 48.1 51.9 Federal 1998 25.5 49.6 18.3 6.4 0.2 39.3 60.7 44.5 55.5 Federal 2001 21.0 48.4 23.5 3.6 2.0 1.5 40.8 59.2 State 2002 22.6 52.2 17.1 3.9 4.3 38.4 61.6 Federal 2004 33.9 49.8 2.2 8.6 3.1 0.6 1.8 44.3 55.7 40.3 59.7 State 2006 30.6 48.9 4.6 11.4 4.5 43.6 56.4 Federal 2007 32.7 46.1 2.0 11.6 2.6 0.4 4.5 46.8 53.2

Davenport sits almost entirely within the Federal seat of Boothby, with about 6% of its voters in Mayo – mostly from Coromandel Valley. Davenport is a south-eastern outer-suburbs seat extending into the foothills, and it has been won by the Liberal Party quite consistently. At times it has been under challenge from IND or DEM candidates. The Member for Davenport in the State Parliament is Iain Evans (LIB) who took over the seat from the retiring Member in 1993, and the area is represented in the Federal Parliament by the LIB Members for Mayo (Alexander Downer) and Boothby (Andrew Southcott).

At the most recent Federal election there was an overall swing in the two party preferred vote of just 2.5 percentage points to the ALP, across Davenport. The 2PP vote for the ALP increased from 44.3% in 2004 to 46.8% in 2007. Considering that the State average was 6.8% this swing is remarkably small, but we need to take into account that the swing across the Federal electorate of Boothby was exactly that – 2.5 percentage points.

In first preference terms, the ALP lost votes in 2007. In 2004 the ALP candidate won 33.9% of all first preference votes but in 2007 the ALP candidate won 32.7% of first

14 preference votes. But once preferences were distributed the ALP two party preferred vote improved from 44.3% in 2004 to 46.8% in 2007, because the Greens won more votes than before and transferred most of them to the ALP once preferences were distributed.

While the DEM vote has almost disappeared in Davenport, the proportion of voters who have been giving their first preference votes to the minor parties and IND candidates has stayed remarkably high, at about 20%. In fact one defining characteristic of Davenport has been the size of the DEM/Greens vote and its relationship to the LIB vote.

Davenport does not have a strong Labor vote – in fact the first preference support for ALP candidates runs at roughly the same level in Davenport and in Bragg, although Bragg is a much safer seat for the Liberal Party. What intervenes in Davenport is support for minor parties and when that support has weakened it has transferred to the ALP rather than to the LIB candidates. When the DEM vote declined from 23.5% of first preferences at the Federal election of 2001 to only 2.2% at the Federal election of 2004, it was the ALP and the Greens who benefited – by 13 percentage points and 5 percentage points respectively – whereas the LIB sitting Member won only 1 percentage point.

A similar thing happened at the State election of 2006 when the decline of the DEM vote released 12.5% of the first preference vote and at the same time votes were released from other IND candidates and minor parties – the ALP won 8 percentage points, the Greens won 11 and LIB lost ground.

Elder

Table 11: How the voters within the current State seat of Elder voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1997 36.4 49.2 8.1 1.0 5.3 45.3 54.7 Federal 1996 38.2 47.4 10.5 2.1 0.6 1.1 45.1 54.9 State 1997 35.5 36.4 13.0 2.0 13.2 52.7 47.3 Federal 1998 41.2 39.4 9.2 1.0 9.2 51.3 48.7 Federal 2001 37.6 41.5 13.8 2.5 3.9 0.6 50.6 49.4 State 2002 44.3 37.8 6.4 3.8 4.3 3.1 0.4 53.6 46.4 Federal 2004 43.6 43.9 1.8 5.3 3.3 0.8 1.3 50.9 49.1 State 2006 55.9 28.9 2.7 7.0 5.5 64.8 35.2 Federal 2007 45.7 38.1 1.6 7.4 3.0 0.7 3.5 56.0 44.0

Elder is a suburban seat south of the CBD and roughly halfway between the beach and the Hills. About 60% of Elder’s voters live in the Federal electorate of Boothby

15 and 40% in the Federal electorate of Hindmarsh. The area is represented at the State level by the ALP Member Pat Conlon who won the seat from the LIB Member in 1997, and in the Federal Parliament by the ALP Member for Hindmarsh (Steve Georganas) and the LIB Member for Boothby (Andrew Southcott).

The time series figures show that the ALP vote in Elder has been growing steadily stronger, at the expense of the LIB vote, at both State and Federal elections.

Elder is one of the seats where we can see that the ALP first preference vote is generally stronger at State elections than at Federal elections whereas the level of support for the Liberal candidates grows at Federal elections.

At the most recent Federal election, in 2007, the LIB candidates’ share of first preference votes in the Elder booths dropped by 5.8 percentage points from 43.9% in 2004 to 38.1% in 2007. At the same time the ALP candidates’ share of that first preference vote increased, but only by 2.1 percentage points, and the other 4.6 percentage points went to the minor parties. That is, of the votes made available by LIB voters changing their minds, only one in three went to Labor.

Once preferences were distributed the ALP did benefit from almost all of the LIB decline, because most of the other formerly-LIB first preferences had been sent to the Greens and about 80% of the Greens’ votes then transferred to Labor with the distribution of preferences.

It seems clear that in Elder in 2007 there were LIB votes available but the ALP candidates could not win them. This is certainly not what happened in the same area at the State election just a year before. In 2006 the LIB first preference vote dropped from 37.8% in 2002 to 28.9%, a fall of 8.9 percentage points. All of these votes seem to have transferred directly across to the ALP – we can see that the ALP first preference vote rose by 11.6 percentage points from 44.3% of the first preferences in 2002 to 55.9% in 2006. So in 2006 all of the LIB losses and another 2.7% of the votes of people who had previously voted for minor parties, went directly to the ALP. Once preferences were distributed in 2006, the 11.6 percentage point swing in the first preference vote translated quite neatly into an 11.2 percentage point swing in the two party preferred result. The ALP 2PP result for Elder in 2006 was 64.8% and this is still the highpoint for the Labor vote in Elder.

Enfield

The State seat of Enfield is a northern suburbs seat quite close to the CBD and lying south of Grand Junction Road. It is not an affluent seat and has traditionally voted Labor at both State and Federal elections. About three quarters of Enfield’s voters live in the Federal seat of Adelaide (those suburbs to the east of the Adelaide to Gawler Railway line), and the remaining quarter live in the Federal seat of Port Adelaide (those suburbs to the west of that Railway line). The State Member for Enfield is the ALP Member John Rau, who won the seat in 2002 (the ALP sitting Member contested the seat as an IND in 2002); and in the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the ALP Members for Adelaide (Kate Ellis) and for Port Adelaide (Mark Butler).

Even though the area is represented at both levels by ALP Members, like Croydon Enfield shows an obvious difference in the vote at State and Federal elections – the ALP vote strengthens at State elections and the (smaller) LIB vote strengthens at Federal elections.

Table 12: How the voters within the current State seat of Enfield voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 45.6 39.5 12.5 2.4 0.0 55.0 45.0 Federal 1996 49.1 37.5 7.6 2.6 1.1 2.2 56.7 43.3 State 1997 55.8 25.5 15.7 0.7 2.3 0.0 67.2 32.8 Federal 1998 52.6 27.4 8.0 1.6 8.9 1.3 63.5 36.5 Federal 2001 51.4 32.3 8.9 3.5 3.6 0.3 61.4 38.6 State 2002 39.9 24.4 5.7 0.2 5.0 2.1 22.6 65.6 34.4 Federal 2004 52.2 37.5 1.2 4.7 3.2 0.3 0.8 58.1 41.9 State 2006 64.3 20.9 3.4 6.0 5.4 0.0 74.5 25.5 Federal 2007 60.2 27.8 1.5 6.9 3.6 0.0 68.6 31.4

At the most recent Federal election in 2007 the ALP share of the first preference vote increased from 52.2% (in 2004) to 60.2%, or 8 percentage points. There seems to have been a direct transfer of votes from disaffected LIB voters: the LIB first preference vote dropped by 9.7 percentage points (from 37.5% to 27.8%) of which 8 percentage points ended up with the ALP and 1.7 with the minor parties.

The results of the State election of 2006 in this particular seat are interesting. The ALP share of the first preference vote increased by a massive 24.4 percentage points from 39.9% of first preferences in 2002 to 64.3% in 2006. Very few of those new votes came from LIB voters. Instead almost all of them seem to have come from people who had voted in 2002 for the sitting Member (ALP turned IND) Ralph Clarke. Nonetheless when preferences were distributed, the two party preferred count showed a swing of 8.9 percentage points to the ALP and the final two party preferred result was 74.5% to the ALP. The result at the most recent election over these same booths was 68.6% on a 2PP basis, which is still well under the ALP highpoint of 2006.

Finniss

Finniss is a country seat focused on agriculture and viticulture. It also has large retirement communities along its coastlines. It covers Kangaroo Island and the Fleurieu Peninsula as far north as Currency Creek and as far east as Goolwa and the Coorong. It lies entirely within the Federal seat of Mayo. In the State Parliament the Member for Finniss is Michael Pengilly (LIB) who took over the seat from the retiring LIB Member in 2006, and in the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the LIB Member for Mayo, Alexander Downer.

The seat has been traditionally strongly and solidly Liberal, although at the Federal election of 2004 an IND candidate won 37.1% of the two party preferred vote.

Table 13: How the voters within the current State seat of Finniss voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Booth First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred result Name ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL (booth + dec votes) First parties IND ALP LIB IND LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 16.6 68.8 9.8 1.7 3.1 24.6 75.4 Federal 1996 19.3 63.0 12.7 4.1 1.0 27.3 72.7 State 1997 21.2 55.5 23.2 33.9 66.1 Federal 1998 20.8 47.7 11.1 1.2 16.7 2.4 34.9 65.1 Federal 2001 23.2 52.9 10.3 4.7 5.8 3.2 36.0 64.0 State 2002 22.0 55.8 8.9 5.1 5.0 3.2 34.4 65.6 Federal 2004 17.9 55.0 1.3 6.2 3.7 0.8 15.1 32.8 67.2 37.1 62.9 State 2006 29.7 36.4 2.6 7.6 5.9 17.8 43.6 56.4 Federal 2007 31.7 52.6 1.0 9.1 4.5 1.2 40.7 59.3

Finniss is not a seat where there is a clear difference in levels of support for the State and Federal candidates of a given party. However, what is apparent from the time series tables is the growing support for ALP candidates, such that in both 2006 and 2007 about 30% of first preference votes went to ALP candidates. This growth in support does not seem to have been at the expense of the LIB candidates as much as the minor parties.

Meanwhile what is happening with the minor parties looks interesting but never seems to amount to much. The Greens have been gradually picking up the DEM vote but have still only reached a level half that of the dizzy heights of the 1997 DEM vote. The Greens return most of their preferences to the ALP whereas only about half of the DEM votes were transferred to the ALP on distribution of preferences, so this change-over from DEM to Greens will gradually increase the ALP 2PP result and make it harder for LIB candidates to retain the seat.

The seat is still very strongly LIB and faces challenges from IND or NAT candidates, who might split the strong LIB first preference vote. The NAT candidate in 2006 did draw votes away from the LIB candidates but returned most of them as preferences and had little effect on the ALP vote. A real challenge would need to have some ALP support as well – and the IND challenge in 2004 seems to have had that but barely dented the LIB first preference vote.

At the most recent Federal election, in 2007, the ALP share of the first preference vote increased by 13.8 percentage points, from an admittedly low level of just 17.9% in 2004, to 31.7% in 2007. This was a big swing and only a tiny proportion of those new votes – 2.4 of those 13.8 percentage points – came from former LIB voters. Instead, almost all of it came from the voters who had voted for the IND candidate in 2004, and we can see from the earlier figures that these voters would originally have been mostly DEM voters. So it seems that what happened in 2007 was that when these former-DEM voters were deciding who to support, they did not return to the DEM candidates but sent their votes to the ALP (some also went to the Greens).

Although the ALP share of first preferences grew by a fairly startling 13.8 percentage points in 2007, once preferences were distributed the final two party preferred vote

18 only increased by 7.9 percentage points, producing an ALP:LIB 2PP result of 40.7% to 59.3% for the area, and leaving the area strongly LIB.

Fisher

Fisher is an outer-suburban seat focussed on Aberfoyle Park and now taking in suburbs across the Happy Valley Reservoir – O’Halloran Hill and parts of Reynella. About 50% of Fisher’s voters live in the Federal seat of Mayo (Alexander Downer, LIB), another 40% live in Kingston (newly-elected ALP Member Amanda Rishworth) and the remaining 10% live in Boothby (Andrew Southcott, LIB). At the State level the seat is represented by the IND Member for Fisher, Bob Such, who won the seat for the Liberal Party in 1989, was re-elected as the LIB candidate in 1993 and 1997 and then contested the seat as an IND candidate in 2002 and 2006.

Table 14: How the voters within the current State seat of Fisher voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two candidate preferred result ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL (booth + dec votes) DEM First parties IND ALP LIB IND LIB ALP IND (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 23.5 63.2 11.3 0.2 1.8 0.1 30.5 69.5 Fed 1996 32.3 52.1 11.0 1.9 1.2 1.5 40.1 59.9 State 1997 28.8 48.5 22.7 41.0 59.0 Fed 1998 28.2 46.9 16.1 7.3 1.5 41.2 58.8 48.1 51.9 Fed 2001 28.0 48.9 15.3 2.8 3.4 1.6 41.4 58.6 State 2002 22.0 30.9 6.2 3.7 2.5 34.6 44.3 55.7 62.1 37.9 28.6 71.4 Fed 2004 30.0 51.2 2.4 4.6 4.6 0.6 6.7 41.2 58.8 38.9 61.1 State 2006 26.4 18.2 1.3 3.1 5.0 46.0 59.4 40.6 33.3 66.7 Fed 2007 39.9 46.0 1.3 6.3 4.8 0.7 0.9 47.7 52.3

NOTE: Federal 1998 DEM: LIB and 2004 IND:LIB two candidate preferred figures relate to just the voters who lived in Mayo- about 50% of the Fisher voters. SOURCE: my calculations based on the official results of the State elections of 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2006 from the State Electoral Office, and official results from the Federal elections of 1996, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007, from the Australian Electoral Commission.

In the absence of Bob Such, Fisher votes LIB at both State and Federal elections, although perhaps more strongly at Federal elections. At the two most recent elections ALP support has increased – to the extent that at the State election of 2006 the seat would have elected an ALP candidate if Bob Such had not been available. (Bob Such’s supporters gave more of their preferences to the ALP in 2006 than they had done in the past).3 At the Federal election of 2007 the seat would still have returned a LIB Member but only just.

At the 2007 Federal election the ALP candidates’ share of the first preference vote increased by 9.9 percentage points from 30.0% in 2004 to 39.9% in 2007, but the LIB share dropped by only 5.2 percentage points (from 51.2% to 46%) so it is clear that the ALP drew votes away from the minor parties and IND candidates as well. Another 4.7 percentage points came from the minor parties which is a remarkably high number of votes that were drawn from these smaller parties – roughly one in 10 LIB

3 In 2006 the rethrow of Bob Such’s votes shows that 60% of his votes would have gone to the ALP; in 2002 only 46% would have gone to the ALP.

19 voters and one in four minor party voters swung to the ALP at the Federal election of 2007.

This is essentially what Dr Such had done in order to win the seat as an IND candidate – in 2002 he drew support from all parties, rather than simply splitting the large LIB first preference vote.

Flinders

The Flinders electorate is completely within the Federal seat of Grey. It contains all of Eyre Peninsula as far north as Cleve and then the boundary moves westward in an arc to take in all of the settled areas as far west as the West Australian border. The Aboriginal communities at Yalata and Koonibba are in Flinders.

At both Federal and State levels the electorate is represented by LIB Members; the State Member for Flinders is Liz Penfold (LIB) who won the seat from the NAT Member in 1993, and the Federal Member for Grey is Rowan Ramsey (LIB).

Table 15: How the voters within the current State seat of Flinders voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Two candidate preferred Election First preference votes (booth votes only) result ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL (booth + dec votes) First parties IND ALP LIB NAT LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 11.8 53.7 4.0 28.3 1.0 1.1 20.3 79.7 Federal 1996 20.9 71.1 5.8 2.3 0.0 24.5 75.5 State 1997 11.2 53.1 6.4 24.7 4.6 22.2 77.8 40.0 60.0 Federal 1998 18.1 60.1 3.6 2.3 15.3 0.7 26.3 73.7 Federal 2001 20.1 67.2 3.9 2.5 6.3 25.9 74.1 State 2002 17.5 63.8 6.3 9.0 3.3 0.1 22.7 77.3 Federal 2004 20.0 66.1 1.9 3.9 5.4 2.8 25.7 74.3 State 2006 12.5 52.5 1.7 4.0 4.2 25.1 0.0 21.5 78.5 39.9 60.1 Federal 2007 25.6 56.0 1.2 4.3 4.5 7.6 0.0 0.8 32.8 67.2

Flinders has been represented by LIB or NAT Members since well before this series began and so it is not surprising to see that this is a seat very like Chaffey, where there are three major parties rather than two. Further, the other minor parties have rarely made much impact (One Nation in 1998 being a single exception).

The time series figures for Flinders are incredibly alike from one State election to the next: the only difference between the four State elections is that when the NAT candidate failed to find support in 2002 two-thirds of those votes transferred to the LIB candidate and one-third to the ALP candidate, until the next election.

Even the 2PP and two candidate preferred (NAT:LIB) results have barely changed from one State election to the next.

At Federal elections, NAT candidates have either not stood or not been well supported. This means that roughly 25% of the first preference vote is available to

20 other parties – and not all have gone to the LIB candidates. My interpretation of the results is that the LIB candidates have won about 15% more of the first preferences and the ALP candidates about 10% more.

Nonetheless the seat is safe for the Liberal Party at Federal level against the ALP and is probably also safe against the National Party, because the Federal seat is simply so big that a NAT candidate is unlikely to have the resources to be able to work up the support across such a broad area.

Florey

The State seat of Florey is centred on Modbury and the surrounding suburbs. It is a compact north-eastern electorate which has moved from marginal LIB status to safe ALP over the period of these time series tables. More than 90% of Florey’s voters live in the Federal seat of Makin, and the remaining voters live in Sturt. The area is now represented at Federal level by the newly-elected ALP Member for Makin (Tony Zappia) and the LIB Member for Sturt (Christopher Pyne), and at the State level by the sitting ALP Member for Florey, Frances Bedford, who won the seat from the LIB Member in 1997.

Table 16: How the voters within the current State seat of Florey voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 33.0 53.9 10.2 0.3 0.4 40.3 59.7 Federal 1996 40.2 45.2 9.4 2.2 0.8 2.2 48.4 51.6 State 1997 38.3 36.7 16.0 2.0 7.1 52.6 47.4 Federal 1998 38.8 39.6 10.3 10.0 1.3 50.0 50.0 Federal 2001 37.2 45.1 10.5 2.4 4.7 0.1 46.8 53.2 State 2002 43.6 36.4 6.7 3.5 6.6 3.1 53.6 46.4 Federal 2004 42.7 44.7 1.8 4.3 4.9 0.8 0.8 49.0 51.0 State 2006 53.9 29.9 3.3 5.7 7.2 62.1 37.9 Federal 2007 51.7 37.7 1.5 4.8 3.5 0.8 57.8 42.2

The ALP share of all first preferences has been growing steadily over the period, to the extent that at the two most recent elections (2006 and 2007) the ALP candidates won the seat outright on first preferences. Still, this has not been a safe seat for the ALP in the past and big swings do happen in this seat. At the State election of 2006 the ALP gained its votes from LIB voters and also from minor party voters: the ALP first preference vote rose by 10.3 percentage points (from 43.6% of first preferences in 2002 to 53.9% in 2006) and these votes seem to have come quite directly from the LIB candidates (who lost 6.5 percentage points) as well as from the minor parties (who lost 3.7 percentage points between them).

The size of the minor party vote in Florey is interesting because it is quite low, and even though the DEM vote was almost as high as the State average, when it faltered the voters who previously favoured the Democrats did not turn to the Greens but sent their votes to the ALP. Certainly the minor party vote does not act as a reservoir of disaffected voters in this seat.

At the 2007 Federal election voters in the Florey electorate would have elected an ALP Member to represent them in the Federal Parliament. The ALP share of first preference votes increased from 42.7% in 2004 to 51.7% in 2007, so an ALP candidate would have won the seat on first preferences alone, and the swing was a solid one of 9 percentage points. The ALP first preference swing was gained primarily from a direct transfer of LIB votes – the LIB share of first preferences dropped by 7 percentage points from 44.7% of all first preferences in 2004 to 37.7% in 2007. The minor parties contributed fairly little –– 2 percentage points.

Once preferences were distributed the swing to the ALP was 8.8 percentage points; the ALP 2PP result strengthened from 49% in 2004 to 57.8% in 2007.

While this was certainly a strong swing and a strong result for the ALP, and there was not the very large discrepancy between the State and Federal swings in Florey that we saw in Colton and Cheltenham for example, the high point for the ALP in this area remains the State result of 2006, where the ALP 2PP stands at 62.1%.

Frome

Frome is a country seat sandwiched between Goyder and Stuart and running north- west from the top of the Barossa to Port Pirie. It takes in Clare and Crystal Brook along the way. About a quarter of Frome’s voters live in the Federal seat of Wakefield but three quarters live in the Federal seat of Grey. At both State and Federal elections it votes Liberal and was represented by Liberal Members in both Parliaments. The Member for Frome in the State Parliament is Rob Kerin (LIB) who has held the seat since it was re-formed in 1993, and in the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the LIB Member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and the newly- elected ALP Member for Wakefield, Nick Champion.

Because it takes in the industrial rural centre of Port Pirie, as well as a large farming hinterland, Frome has two political characters, and has a larger ALP support base than most rural seats. In this sense it is very like Giles.

In Frome we need to recognise a fourth reference point in the time series tables, which is the State election of 2002, when Rob Kerin had been newly elected as Premier and led the Liberal Party to an election barely 4 months later. That was a high point for the LIB first preference and 2PP vote in this electorate.

Frome is a rural seat but not, by nature, a safe one for the Liberal Party. At State elections it has been a marginal LIB seat except for the extraordinarily strong LIB result in 2002, although it has given slightly stronger support to the Liberal Party at Federal elections. But at the Federal election of 2007 the ALP seems to have won votes quite directly from voters who have previously voted LIB. The ALP share of first preference votes increased from 34% in 2004 to 41.6%, a boost of 7.6 percentage points, and the LIB first preference share dropped by 7.5 percentage points from 54.4% in 2004 to 46.9% in 2007. These figures indicate a direct transfer of votes from LIB to the ALP at this last election.

22 Table 17: How the voters within the current State seat of Frome voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 38.2 53.5 5.9 2.4 42.7 57.3 Federal 1996 37.0 53.8 7.2 1.7 0.3 41.4 58.6 State 1997 36.0 44.6 10.7 0.2 8.5 46.8 53.2 Federal 1998 33.1 46.2 5.7 2.9 11.3 0.9 43.5 56.5 Federal 2001 34.9 52.9 4.1 2.0 6.0 41.5 58.5 State 2002 35.8 57.2 3.9 3.0 38.5 61.5 Federal 2004 34.0 54.4 1.8 3.1 5.0 1.6 38.9 61.1 State 2006 41.6 47.8 1.9 3.6 5.1 46.6 53.4 Federal 2007 41.6 46.9 1.1 3.9 4.2 1.1 0.4 0.7 47.8 52.2

On the Federal results of 2007 the seat would still not have been anything other than a marginal LIB seat, but a 2PP swing of 8.9 percentage points towards the ALP in a country seat is remarkable.

A final interesting characteristic of the seat is the relatively low vote for minor parties and IND candidates. Unlike Florey, which also showed a relatively low proportion of votes given to minor parties, even the Democrat vote in Frome has been quite low and the NAT candidates who have occasionally contested the seat have not had much support either. Certainly the minor party vote does not act as a reservoir of disaffected voters in this seat.

Giles

Like Frome, Giles is a country seat with both rural-industrial and (in this case) pastoral components. It covers Whyalla and the top of Eyre Peninsula and the whole of the north west of the State from the Pitjantjatjara lands to Andamooka and south to skirt around Port Augusta. Giles is completely within the Federal seat of Grey. The area is represented in the Federal Parliament by the LIB Member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and in the State Parliament the ALP Member for Giles is Lyn Breuer, who took over the seat from the retiring ALP Member in 1997.

Like Frome, Giles is probably best thought of as a marginal seat, although in this case a marginal ALP seat and in this case one which returned a very strong result in 2006. The sitting ALP Member wins a larger share of the first preference vote at State elections than any ALP candidate has won at Federal elections. This is not at all unusual but in the case of Giles the difference is so big and the seat is so finely balanced that the seat has often voted ALP at State elections and LIB at Federal elections.

However, at the Federal election of 2007 the ALP candidate would have won the seat with a fairly strong margin. There was a swing of 12.8% on a 2PP basis which is a remarkably strong swing in any seat especially in a seat outside Adelaide.

Table 18: How the voters within the current State seat of Giles voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Booth First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred Name ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 38.3 36.1 10.5 15.1 50.1 49.9 Federal 1996 48.1 42.3 7.2 2.4 53.1 46.9 State 1997 45.3 31.3 15.4 2.2 5.4 0.4 56.9 43.1 Federal 1998 42.8 37.1 5.8 1.6 11.4 1.3 53.2 46.8 Federal 2001 40.6 45.0 6.0 2.3 6.0 49.0 51.0 State 2002 47.1 33.0 8.8 1.0 3.1 7.0 55.1 44.9 Federal 2004 39.4 48.0 2.7 3.1 4.6 2.2 44.6 55.4 State 2006 59.8 28.6 4.4 6.0 1.3 64.4 35.6 Federal 2007 50.7 36.6 1.3 3.7 4.8 1.6 1.3 57.4 42.6

The swing in 2007 was achieved at the expense of the LIB vote rather than from the minor parties. Looking at first preference votes, the LIB share of the first preference vote fell in 2007 by 11.4 percentage points (from 48% in 2004 to 36.6%) and the ALP first preference share rose by 11.3 percentage points (from 39.4% to 50.7%). The minor parties’ share stayed almost exactly the same. So there was a direct transfer of votes from the LIB to the ALP in 2007.

Once preferences were transferred the swing was amplified to a swing of 12.8 percentage points and the final two party preferred result in the area was ALP: LIB 57.4% : 42.6%.

By comparison, at the State election in 2006 there was a swing to Labor of 12.7 percentage points, which drew more from the minor parties rather than from LIB voters: 4.4 percentage points came from LIB voters but most (8.3 percentage points) came from people who had given their vote to the IND candidate in 2002 or to minor parties. Then when preferences were distributed the swing was reduced to 9.3 percentage points and the ALP final two party preferred result was 64.4%. This means that the highpoint for the ALP vote in this area is the State election of 2006.

The ALP vote in Giles has been quite distinctly different in size at State and Federal elections: in general it has been growing stronger at each State election but weakening at each Federal election. The Federal 2007 result was a very strong result for the ALP in the area and it shows that voters in Giles are willing to support the ALP at a Federal election under the right circumstances.

Goyder

This is a rural seat taking in all of Yorke Peninsula as far north as Port Broughton, and then slipping south-east to cover Port Wakefield, Balaklava and as close to Adelaide as Dublin. Even though these two regions may be thought of as fairly

24 distinct, they have a common interest in dryland cropping. About 80% of Goyder’s voters live in the Federal seat of Grey, and 20% live in Wakefield.

The area is strongly LIB oriented and has been represented in both Parliaments by LIB Members until the most recent Federal election when an ALP candidate won Wakefield. In the State Parliament it is represented by the LIB Member for Goyder Steven Griffiths, who took over the seat from the retiring LIB Member in 2006. In the Federal Parliament it is represented by the LIB Member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, and the newly-elected ALP Member for Wakefield, Nick Champion.

Table 19: How the voters within the current State seat of Goyder voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 23.0 67.7 9.3 27.5 72.5 Federal 1996 21.8 63.2 9.8 1.8 3.4 28.7 71.3 State 1997 22.7 55.1 13.7 8.4 33.1 66.9 Federal 1998 21.8 50.7 5.1 1.5 19.0 1.9 33.8 66.2 Federal 2001 25.9 57.5 5.3 2.6 8.7 35.1 64.9 State 2002 23.2 51.2 6.3 4.6 5.6 9.1 33.8 66.2 Federal 2004 27.6 58.9 2.4 2.9 5.2 3.1 33.2 66.8 State 2006 32.8 50.1 2.6 4.4 7.4 2.7 40.8 59.2 Federal 2007 32.5 54.5 1.3 3.5 5.2 1.6 0.5 1.0 38.5 61.5

The seat is a safe one for the Liberal Party in two senses – it has had a strong and solid LIB vote, and it has not attracted a NAT or IND challenger (the One Nation vote in 1998 and DEM vote in 1997 were never likely to be bigger than the ALP first preference vote). There has been a decline in the LIB vote at State elections but this is likely to steady with the election of a new Member, and support for LIB candidates remains so high that they regularly win the seat on first preferences alone.

At the Federal election the ALP candidate won 32.5% of the first preference vote, an increase of 4.9 percentage points when compared to the ALP share of first preferences in 2004 (27.6%). The LIB candidate meanwhile lost 4.4 percentage points (from 58.9% of first preferences in 2004 to 54.5% in 2007). So it does seem that the votes transferred quite directly from the LIB candidates to the ALP. Once preferences were distributed the ALP won a swing of 5.3 percentage points and a final 2PP of 33.2%; the area remained safe LIB.

By contrast with the Federal 2007 results, the strong rise in the ALP vote at the State election of 2006 was not due to a weakening of LIB support at all, but to voters who had previously given their support to an IND candidate in 2002. At the State election in 2006 the ALP share of all first preference votes rose by 9.6 percentage points from 23.2% in 2002 to 32.8% in 2006. At the same time the LIB share of first preferences fell by only 1.1 percentage points from 51.2% to 50.1% of all first preferences. The share of the first preference vote held by minor parties and IND candidates in 2002 dropped by 8.5 percentage points and these votes provided the boost to the ALP vote.

When preferences were distributed in 2006 the 9.6 percentage point swing towards the ALP in first preferences was reduced to a 7 percentage point swing, and the final two party preferred vote for the seat was ALP 40.8% to LIB 59.2%.

Big swings do happen sometimes in country electorates. They often seem to involve IND or NAT candidates and the retirement of the sitting member. Both of these conditions were satisfied in Goyder in 2006.

Hammond

Hammond is focussed on Murray Bridge and the central dryland farming area running from the River Murray to the Victorian border. It runs north to Swan Reach, south to Meningie and extends into the outer-metropolitan area to include Strathalbyn. It is a seat with broad-ranging identities, but a common one is dryland farming. About three in every four Hammond voters live in the Federal electorate of Barker and the remaining quarter live in Mayo. In the State Parliament the Member for Hammond is Adrian Pederick who won the seat in 2006 from the IND Member, and in the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the LIB Members for Mayo (Alexander Downer) and Barker (Patrick Secker).

Table 20: How the voters within the current State seat of Hammond voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two canddiate preferred result ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL (booth + dec votes) CLIC First parties IND ALP LIB / IND LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 19.9 69.7 9.9 0.6 25.5 74.5 Federal 1996 20.7 62.8 11.4 3.9 0.9 0.3 27.7 72.3 State 1997 20.7 50.4 18.2 10.7 34.0 66.0 Federal 1998 18.6 46.4 8.2 4.4 20.3 2.2 34.3 65.7 Federal 2001 21.6 55.8 8.4 2.9 7.9 3.4 32.2 67.8 State 2002 17.7 41.3 5.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 35.2 34.0 66.0 52.1 47.9 Federal 2004 20.7 56.7 1.5 4.2 5.9 4.3 1.6 5.2 30.5 69.5 30.9 69.1 State 2006 27.5 48.5 3.6 6.9 9.5 4.0 38.0 62.0 Federal 2007 30.3 51.6 1.7 5.6 5.9 4.6 0.3 38.8 61.2

NOTE: The IND: LIB split for the Federal election of 2004 relates just to the Hammond voters in Mayo, so it only represents the views of about a quarter of the Hammond electorate. SOURCE: my calculations based on the official results of the State elections of 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2006 from the State Electoral Office, and official results from the Federal elections of 1996, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007, from the Australian Electoral Commission.

This is a seat where there is a strong LIB support base, usually resulting in a strong LIB first preference vote at both State and Federal elections, but the seat has attracted IND challengers and at the 2002 State election that challenge was successful.

26 The ALP first preference vote has been increasing steadily over the period, but the level of support for LIB candidates remains high enough that LIB candidates have usually won the seat without the need to rely on preferences.

At the Federal election of 2007 the ALP first preference vote increased by 9.6 percentage points from 20.7% of the first preference vote in 2004 to 30.3% in 2007. This swing won votes away from the LIB candidates – the LIB first preference vote dropped by 5.1 percentage points – and also from the minor parties which lost 4.5 percentage points between them (the main difference appears to be the absence of an IND candidate this time).

The 2007 swing brought the ALP 2PP vote up to 38.8%, which is of course not high enough to have won the seat but is the highest ALP vote recorded in the area over this period.

Hartley

Hartley is an eastern suburbs seat close to the city centre with substantial numbers of voters of Italian ancestry. It runs from Kensington Gardens north to Campbelltown and includes most of Magill. Hartley sits entirely within the Federal seat of Sturt. It is represented in the State Parliament by the ALP Member for Hartley, Grace Portolesi, who won the seat from the LIB sitting Member in 2006, and in the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the LIB Member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne.

Table 21: How the voters within the current State seat of Hartley voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 31.2 56.8 8.5 3.5 0.0 37.7 62.3 Federal 1996 33.6 52.6 10.4 2.6 0.7 0.2 41.5 58.5 State 1997 38.1 43.9 17.6 0.4 48.2 51.8 Federal 1998 36.1 44.3 11.6 7.2 0.8 45.7 54.3 Federal 2001 33.4 47.2 11.0 3.9 3.0 1.4 45.3 54.7 State 2002 39.2 43.4 6.8 3.9 4.5 1.3 0.9 47.8 52.2 Federal 2004 37.6 48.4 2.3 6.4 4.8 0.5 0.0 46.4 53.6 State 2006 45.9 39.2 2.8 6.6 4.0 1.6 0.0 54.6 45.4 Federal 2007 44.5 44.5 1.1 6.5 3.1 0.3 0.0 51.2 48.8

At State level Hartley has been a marginal seat contested strongly by both the ALP and the Liberal Party for all of the period covered by these tables. The result has been that Hartley has been a marginal LIB seat for most of the period but changed hands to the ALP at the State election of 2006.

27 At the most recent Federal election of 2007, the seat would also have returned an ALP Member. The ALP candidate in 2007 won 44.5% of the first preference votes in the area, an increase of 6.9 percentage points on the share won by the ALP candidate in 2004 (37.6%). These votes came from voters who had previously favoured the LIB candidate, whose first preference vote declined in this area by 3.9 percentage points (from 43.4% of first preferences to 39.2%), and also from the minor parties, who lost 3 percentage points between them.

When preferences were allocated, the 6.9 percentage points swing to the ALP on first preferences was reduced to just 4.8 percentage points, but that was enough to produce an ALP 2PP result of 51.2% and would have elected an ALP Member to represent this area.

It is worth noting that over the period covered by these tables the ALP vote in this area has been a little weaker at Federal elections than at State elections, and the LIB first preference vote has been stronger at Federal elections. This is likely to remain the case as long as the Federal Member is a LIB.

Heysen

Table 22: How the voters within the current State seat of Heysen voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred result ALP LIB DEM GREENS Family Other ALL (booth + dec votes) First parties IND IND / ALP LIB DEM LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 15.1 65.9 11.9 4.7 2.3 25.8 74.2 Federal 1996 20.5 58.4 14.1 5.0 0.7 1.3 32.7 67.3 State 1997 20.4 50.2 29.0 0.3 37.9 62.1 Federal 1998 16.2 45.8 28.4 8.5 1.2 38.0 62.0 48.9 51.1 Federal 2001 16.7 51.9 16.5 8.3 2.7 4.0 37.8 62.2 State 2002 18.2 46.5 16.1 8.3 3.5 3.5 3.8 40.4 59.6 46.3 53.7 Federal 2004 14.4 49.6 1.8 11.1 2.8 0.8 19.5 41.7 58.3 42.7 57.3 State 2006 28.1 44.0 5.3 17.7 5.0 47.0 53.0 Federal 2007 30.4 48.0 1.8 15.8 2.7 1.2 45.8 54.2

Heysen runs behind the Hills Face Zone and takes in the commuter townships of the Adelaide Hills as well as small farming and horticultural communities. It covers the Stirling-Aldgate-Bridgwater area, the hinterland of Mt Barker (but not Mt Barker itself) and the areas north, almost as far as Norton Summit, and south, to take in Mt Compass. It is a fairly consistent community with focuses on small scale farming and the rural lifestyle of people who often work in the city. In the State Parliament the Member for Heysen is Isobel Redmond, who took over the seat from the retiring LIB Member in 2002, and in the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the

28 Federal Member for Mayo, Alexander Downer. A small area of Heysen lies within Boothby.4

The seat is oriented towards the Liberal Party but challenges have been made on a fairly regular basis from IND and DEM candidates. The Greens vote is currently very strong in the area, but is not yet stronger than the ALP.

This is a seat like Chaffey and Flinders where a third party presence must be acknowledged. The DEM vote has declined even in Heysen but the Greens seem to have won over a large percentage of their supporters. Indeed a swing of 6 to 7% of ALP first preference votes to the Greens would put a Greens candidate in a position to challenge the LIB sitting Member. Conversely, Greens support would channel more votes to an ALP candidate than an equal number of DEM votes would, because Greens voters send a higher proportion of their preferences to the ALP.

It is worth pointing out, though, that the area has in the end always returned LIB Members to both the State and the Federal Parliaments.

At the most recent Federal election of 2007, the ALP share of first preference votes increased from 14.4% in 2004 to 30.4% in 2007, a strong swing to the ALP on first preferences of 16 percentage points. The ALP first preference swing was not gained through a direct transfer of LIB votes – the LIB share of first preferences fell by only 1.6 percentage points from 49.6% of all first preferences in 2004 to 48% in 2007.

Instead almost all of the new ALP first preference votes came from people who had voted for the IND candidate in 2004, and we can see from the earlier figures that these voters would originally have been mostly DEM voters. So it seems that what happened in 2007 was that when these former-DEM voters were deciding who to support, they did not return to the DEM candidates but sent their votes to the ALP (some also went to the Greens).

Although the ALP share of first preferences grew by a fairly startling 16 percentage points in 2007, once preferences were distributed the final two party preferred vote only increased by 4.1 percentage points, producing an ALP:LIB 2PP result of 45.8% to 54.23% for the area, and leaving the area marginal LIB.

By contrast, at the State election of 2006, the ALP candidate won a swing that was less extreme but that helped the ALP final result in the seat rather more. The ALP share of first preference votes increased from 18.2% in 2002 to 28.1% in 2006, a swing to the ALP on first preferences of 10.1 percentage points. Once again the ALP first preference swing was not gained through a direct transfer of LIB votes – the LIB share of first preferences fell by only 2.5 percentage points from 46.5% of all first preferences in 2002 to 44% in 2006, so once again the swing to the ALP came from the minor party vote (in this case the DEM vote). But this time, once preferences were distributed, the final two party preferred vote increased by 6.6 percentage points for the ALP (compared to the 4.1 percentage point swing of 2007), producing an ALP:LIB 2PP result of 47% to 53% for the area.

At both the State election of 2006 and the Federal election of 2007, the ALP candidates in Heysen increased their support by attracting people who had previously voted for IND or DEM candidates. There is no reservoir of IND or DEM votes for the ALP candidates to draw on at the next election, but the Greens vote is now big enough in this seat to be a major factor in the outcome.

4 The Belair National Park

29 Kaurna

Kaurna lies entirely within the Federal seat of Kingston. It is a long strip that runs along the southern metropolitan coastline and takes in the southernmost beach suburbs from Christies Beach to Sellicks Beach. Kaurna is an ALP-oriented area: Although not strongly so at the beginning of the time series, it is now a safe Labor seat and would have returned an ALP Member to the Federal Parliament at most of the Federal elections too. It is represented in the Federal Parliament by the new ALP Member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, and in the State Parliament by the ALP Member for Kaurna, John Hill, who won the seat from the LIB in 1997.

Table 23: How the voters within the current State seat of Kaurna voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Two party Election First preference votes (booth votes only) preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result (booth + dec First parties IND votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 36.5 46.2 5.8 4.4 4.6 2.5 46.5 53.5 Federal 1996 40.1 40.6 10.1 2.7 3.2 3.3 49.7 50.3 State 1997 41.7 36.3 13.0 1.3 7.7 55.0 45.0 Federal 1998 41.8 34.4 9.0 11.7 3.2 54.4 45.6 Federal 2001 40.9 36.4 11.5 4.5 6.6 0.1 54.8 45.2 State 2002 45.6 26.9 5.6 5.4 4.0 4.4 8.0 60.9 39.1 Federal 2004 44.8 39.9 2.0 7.1 5.1 1.2 53.7 46.3 State 2006 61.0 20.3 2.1 7.0 6.6 3.0 72.1 27.9 Federal 2007 48.4 37.8 0.8 7.0 4.7 0.3 1.0 56.6 43.4

In 1993, when the ALP vote was especially weak, and in 1996, when the LIB vote was especially strong, the seat voted LIB, but marginally so. Since then the seat has been an ALP seat.

The first preference vote for LIB candidates has been much stronger at Federal elections than at State elections in this area. Roughly 10 to 20% of voters have been happy to vote LIB at Federal elections but not at State elections. Surprisingly, given the swings we have seen in other seats at the Federal election of 2007, these voters remained loyal to the LIB Federal Member in 2007. There was a drop of only 2.1 percentage points in the LIB first preference vote from 2004 to 2007, and it was a drop in the minor party share of first preference votes (by 1.6 percentage points) that increased the ALP candidate’s share of first preferences by 3.6 percentage points.

In Kaurna, as in Bright, the ALP have won votes from the Liberal candidates at State elections but not at Federal elections, with the result that each area remains in LIB hands Federally.

At the Federal election of 2007 the ALP candidate increased the ALP share of first preference votes by a relatively small amount – just 3.6 percentage points - from 44.8% in 2004 to 48.4% of first preferences in 2007. It was not that there were no LIB votes to be won: the LIB share of first preference votes fell by 6.6 percentage points

30 (from 26.9% in 2004 to 20.3% of first preferences in 2007). Almost half of these LIB votes went to the minor parties in the area rather than to the ALP. When preferences were distributed the swing to the ALP in the area was reduced to just 2.9 percentage points, bringing the two party preferred ALP vote up from 53.7% to 56.6%.

The 2PP swing to the ALP of 2.9 percentage points was genuinely low, given that the average swing across Kingston was 4.5. It was also very low by comparison with the 11.2 percentage point swing in the two party preferred vote that had been achieved at the State election of 2006.

At that election in 2006, the ALP first preference vote grew by 15.4 percentage points from 45.6% of all first preference votes to 61%, of which 6.6 percentage points came from people who had previously voted LIB and the majority (8.8 percentage points) came from people who had previously supported IND candidates or minor parties. Then when preferences were distributed the swing translated into a two party preferred swing to the ALP of 11.2 percentage points and the final 2PP result for the seat stood at a highpoint for the seat of 72.1% ALP. There is plenty of room for the Federal ALP vote to improve.

Kavel

Kavel takes in the Adelaide Hills centres of Hahndorf and Mt Barker and the horticultural and farming communities around them. The area is characterised by intensive agriculture and horticulture. Kavel lies entirely within the Federal seat of Mayo. Throughout this period LIB Members have represented the electorate; Kavel is represented in the State Parliament by the LIB Member, Mark Goldsworthy, who took over the seat from the retiring LIB Member in 2002, and is represented in the Federal Parliament by the LIB Member for Mayo, Alexander Downer.

Table 24: How the voters within the current State seat of Kavel voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred result ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL (booth + dec votes) First parties IND DEM / ALP LIB IND LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 17.3 66.8 9.9 0.4 2.1 3.4 25.9 74.1 Federal 1996 18.8 62.3 13.0 3.7 0.5 1.5 29.0 71.0 State 1997 19.7 52.6 23.2 4.5 34.6 65.4 Federal 1998 16.1 47.1 24.1 12.2 0.6 34.3 65.7 47.0 53.0 Federal 2001 17.2 55.7 14.0 5.4 4.2 3.5 33.1 66.9 State 2002 18.1 44.1 9.4 5.4 0.3 5.4 17.2 37.1 62.9 46.3 53.7 Federal 2004 14.1 54.9 1.9 7.2 4.1 1.1 16.7 35.0 65.0 36.6 63.4 State 2006 24.6 43.7 3.5 9.8 16.4 1.9 40.7 59.3 Federal 2007 30.3 51.1 1.7 11.0 4.6 1.3 41.9 58.1

31 Kavel consistently returns a strong LIB result at both State and Federal elections. The LIB vote has occasionally been challenged by IND candidates, but never successfully – although the result was close in 1998.

Kavel shares Heysen’s vulnerability to a DEM or IND challenger (or possibly Greens) and it also shows the transfer of support from the Democrats to the Greens, although as in most other seats the Greens support has not reached the heights of the DEM vote in 1997.

At the Federal election of 2007 the ALP candidate increased the ALP share of the first preference vote by a massive 16.2 percentage points from an admittedly low point of 14.1% in 2004 to 30.3% of first preferences in 2007. This was made possible by the fact that a popular IND candidate (Playford) did not stand in 2007. When he stood in 2004 he appeared to win most of his support from DEM and other minor party supporters, not from the ALP at all. Yet, in 2007, in his absence, the ALP won most of those votes. At the same time, the LIB share of the first preferences declined by 3.8 percentage points (from 54.9% of first preferences in 2004 to 51.1% in 2007) and the Greens improved their share by the same amount. It is not clear whether this was a direct transfer of support from the LIB to the Greens or whether it came via the voters who had previously supported the IND candidate.

Something similar happened at the State election of 2006. The ALP increased its share of the first preference vote by 6.5 percentage points, almost completely at the expense of the minor parties (the LIB first preference share dropped by only 0.4 percentage points so they could not have supplied the votes). In this case a big increase in the Family First vote resulted simply from Playford’s change of status from IND to FF candidate, and while that was happening the Greens took on most of the DEM supporters. In the final result the distribution of preferences has produced a strong LIB result at each election, although there has been a weakening of the LIB majority in Kavel from the heady days of the early 1990s. This may be a blessing in disguise for the LIB Members of the area, reducing the likelihood of challenges.

Lee

Lee is a compact coastal suburbs electorate that covers West Lakes and Semaphore. Just over half of its voters live in the Federal seat of Hindmarsh and just under half in the Federal seat of Port Adelaide.

Lee is a safe ALP electorate at both State and Federal level and is represented in both Parliaments by ALP Members. The State ALP Member for Lee is Michael Wright, who took over the seat from the retiring ALP Member in 1997, and the Federal ALP Members for Hindmarsh and Port Adelaide are Steve Georganas and Mark Butler respectively.

Lee voters make very little distinction between State and Federal elections. Roughly half of them vote Labor at any election.

At the Federal election of 2007, the LIB share of first preferences in this electorate dropped by 5.2 percentage points from 39.6% of first preferences in 2004 to 34.4% in 2007. Fewer than half of these votes went to the ALP candidate. The ALP share of the first preference vote increased by only 2.3 percentage points (and the remaining 2.9 percentage points from formerly-LIB voters went to the minor parties).

32 Table 25: How the voters within the current State seat of Lee voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 38.9 42.8 5.6 1.6 11.1 50.3 49.7 Federal 1996 42.7 42.4 9.7 4.6 0.6 52.0 48.0 State 1997 50.1 29.7 13.3 0.7 6.1 60.8 39.2 Federal 1998 46.8 31.6 9.5 8.7 3.4 59.4 40.6 Federal 2001 44.5 34.8 10.0 5.0 4.7 0.9 58.8 41.2 State 2002 48.0 35.4 5.3 5.3 0.1 4.9 1.1 58.7 41.3 Federal 2004 47.6 39.6 1.5 6.6 2.8 0.9 1.1 56.0 44.0 State 2006 58.9 26.1 2.8 7.7 4.5 69.3 30.7 Federal 2007 49.9 34.4 2.0 9.4 3.5 0.5 0.3 60.2 39.8

Once preferences were distributed, the swing to the ALP was increased from 2.3 percentage points to 4.2 and the final 2PP result in the area would have been ALP 60.2% to LIB 39.8%. This is a lower result for the area than we might have expected given that the swing in Hindmarsh was 5 percentage points and in Port Adelaide it was 6.8 percentage points.

It is also nothing like what happened at the State election of 2006, when the ALP won a swing of 10.9 percentage points on first preferences (almost all from people who had previously voted LIB) and once preferences were distributed the 2PP swing was 10.6 percentage points. Clearly, big swings do happen in this area and they did in 2006. The high point for the ALP vote in this area is not the Federal election result but the State result in 2006 of 69.3% on a two party preferred basis.

Light

The State electorate of Light covers Gawler and its supporting region, and also part of Munno Para which makes up the very furthest northern reaches of the Adelaide suburban area. Light is entirely within the Federal seat of Wakefield. A LIB seat for most of the period covered by these tables, although sometimes only marginally so, Light was won in 2006 for the ALP by Tony Piccolo, and would also have returned an ALP Member to the Federal Parliament at the 2007 Federal election. It will be represented in the Federal Parliament by the newly-elected ALP Member for Wakefield, Nick Champion.

At the Federal election of 2007 the ALP share of first preferences in this area increased from 36.8% to 43.2%, a rise of 6.4 percentage points. The LIB share declined by only 4.7 percentage points, so it is clear that the ALP attracted some of its swing from the minor parties as well as from LIB supporters. The Greens vote did not weaken but Family First and other small parties lost votes to the ALP.

33 Table 26: How the voters within the current State seat of Light voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 32.4 51.1 10.7 1.0 4.8 40.1 59.9 Federal 1996 33.8 47.6 12.7 3.3 2.3 0.3 42.9 57.1 State 1997 36.1 42.5 21.4 49.2 50.8 Federal 1998 33.1 38.6 9.3 16.8 1.3 46.5 53.5 Federal 2001 33.4 45.3 9.6 3.5 8.2 45.9 54.1 State 2002 40.2 42.8 5.3 2.6 4.7 4.3 47.7 52.3 Federal 2004 36.8 49.0 1.6 4.6 5.7 2.2 43.7 56.3 State 2006 44.7 39.9 1.7 5.0 6.6 2.1 52.2 47.8 Federal 2007 43.2 44.3 1.1 5.0 4.6 1.0 50.8 49.2

This result repeats what happened in this area at the State election of 2006, when the ALP won votes both from LIB supporters and from minor parties. In 2006 the ALP first preference vote rose by 4.5 percentage points and the LIB vote declined by somewhat less, 2.9 percentage points.

Because the LIB votes did transfer almost completely across to the ALP candidates, neither the State nor the Federal results look like a case of disaffected LIB voters transferring their attention to simply anyone but the LIB candidate. Rather it seems to be a case of the ALP attracting votes from every other source.

When preferences were distributed in 2007, the swing to the ALP of 6.4 percentage points on first preferences, was amplified into a swing of 7.1 percentage points on a two party preferred basis. By comparison, in 2006 the 4.5 percentage points swing in first preferences translated exactly into a swing of 4.5 percentage points on a two party preferred basis.

Little Para

When the electorate of Elizabeth was split between two electorates, Little Para took part of Elizabeth, part of Salisbury and part of the Golden Grove development. It also has the suburbs of Fairview Park and Surrey Downs, which are miles away and seem unrelated to the other areas. The seat is represented in the State Parliament by the ALP Member for Little Para, Lea Stevens, who won the seat in a by-election in 1994 from the retiring IND Labor Member. In the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the ALP Federal Members for Makin and Wakefield (Tony Zappia and Nick Champion respectively), both of whom won their seats in 2007 from LIB sitting Members.

At the Federal election in 2007 the ALP share of first preference votes increased by 7.3 percentage points from 44.8% of all first preferences in 2004 to 52.1% in 2007. Almost all of these extra votes came from people who had supported the LIB candidates in 2004 – the LIB first preference vote dropped by 6.1 percentage points

34 from 43.4% to 37.3%. In addition the ALP attracted votes from the minor parties, although not from the Greens.

Table 27: How the voters within the current State seat of Little Para voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 37.0 44.6 7.9 0.6 9.9 46.8 53.2 Federal 1996 42.5 42.0 11.1 2.5 0.3 1.6 50.3 49.7 State 1997 46.1 33.3 19.0 0.3 1.4 58.5 41.5 Federal 1998 40.8 36.8 10.0 11.9 0.5 52.1 47.9 Federal 2001 38.6 41.2 10.6 2.3 7.2 49.4 50.6 State 2002 45.2 35.0 6.7 7.4 5.7 57.2 42.8 Federal 2004 44.8 43.4 1.6 3.5 4.9 1.4 0.4 50.1 49.9 State 2006 55.7 25.4 2.4 4.4 8.7 0.0 3.4 66.8 33.2 Federal 2007 52.1 37.3 1.1 3.6 4.4 1.5 57.9 42.1

Once preferences were distributed the 7.3 percentage point swing in the first preference vote translated quite neatly into a 7.8 percentage point swing in the two party preferred vote, and the result in the seat was 57.9% ALP to 42.1% LIB on a two party preferred basis.

By comparison, the swing towards the ALP at the State election was bigger (10.5 percentage points to the ALP), just as direct (the LIB vote dropped by 9.6 percentage points), and the swing, once preferences were distributed, was higher than the Federal result, at 9.6 percentage points. The result at the State election of 2006 stands as the ALP highpoint for this electorate at 66.8% ALP on a two party preferred basis.

Mackillop

Mackillop is entirely within the Federal district of Barker. It is a district focussed on farming and winemaking, covering a large area from Coonalpyn across to the Victorian border and south to include most of the South-East apart from Mt.Gambier. It also includes the Coonawarra district.

The seat returns a strong LIB majority vote at any election. It has been represented by LIB Members in both Parliaments for the entire period covered by these tables, except for one term from 1997 to 2002 when the current LIB State Member, Mitch Williams, held the seat as an IND LIB (he has since rejoined the Liberal Party). At the Federal level the seat is represented by the LIB Member for Barker, Patrick Secker.

At every election in the time series except 1997, the LIB candidates have won this area on first preferences alone. Because of the intervention of two IND candidates in 1997 and then again in 2002, the real size of the LIB vote is difficult to compare properly from one election to the next – the IND candidates tend to draw votes from

35 the ALP as well as from LIB. Still, the Federal results show that in 2007 there was a fairly direct transfer of votes from the LIB Federal Member to the ALP candidate for the area. The LIB share of the first preference vote dropped by 9.3 percentage points (from 61.9% in 2004 to 52.6% in 2007) and the vast majority of these votes (8.5 percentage points) went to the ALP. The ALP share of the first preference votes across the area increased from 16.9% of all first preferences to 25.4% of first preferences in 2007.

Table 28: How the voters within the current State seat of Mackillop voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred result ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL (booth + dec votes) First parties IND IND LIB/ ALP LIB IND LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 17.0 71.1 6.4 5.5 20.7 79.6 Federal 1996 19.1 70.9 6.4 2.8 0.7 23.2 76.8 State 1997 15.7 34.2 4.7 8.9 6.8 29.7 29.1 70.9 57.9 42.1 Federal 1998 17.6 53.6 3.4 2.0 16.3 7.1 29.5 70.5 Federal 2001 19.1 60.6 3.5 2.5 7.1 7.3 26.9 73.1 State 2002 13.4 51.8 1.8 4.9 2.7 25.4 29.7 70.3 38.4 61.6 Federal 2004 16.9 61.9 1.0 2.9 6.0 8.5 1.4 1.3 23.6 76.4 State 2006 21.8 59.4 2.5 4.0 7.0 5.3 27.8 72.2 Federal 2007 25.4 52.6 2.1 3.8 6.3 9.7 33.5 66.5

This was a direct transfer of votes, unmediated by the minor parties. A similarly direct transfer took place in the other direction at the Federal election of 2004, although the number of votes transferred was so small it is barely relevant (the ALP share of first preferences dropped by 2.2 percentage points and the LIB share increased by 1.3 percentage points). Still, it is enough to show that transfers do happen.

Interestingly the DEM vote has been very weak in this seat and the Greens have not made much headway either. NAT candidates have found some support although not to a degree that would involve a challenge to the LIB Members. These minor party (and IND) votes do affect the outcome in the seat through the way they are distributed to the final two candidates. In 2006, for example, the LIB sitting Member improved the LIB first preference vote by 7.6 percentage points, a very solid swing, but once preferences were distributed this was translated into a 2PP swing to LIB of just 1.9 percentage points, from 70.3% in 2002 to 72.2% in 2006.

Mawson

The southern suburbs seat of Mawson is entirely within the Federal seat of Kingston. Like Little Para to the north, it has several focal points – in Mawson’s case these are the southern suburbs of Woodcroft, then Hackham/ Noarlunga Downs and finally the rural areas of the McLaren Vale wine region.

36 Table 29: How the voters within the current State seat of Mawson voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 31.8 52.7 8.5 0.3 1.3 5.2 41.3 58.7 Federal 1996 38.1 44.7 10.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 46.3 53.7 State 1997 33.7 45.1 19.2 0.1 1.9 45.9 54.1 Federal 1998 37.6 41.1 9.3 9.3 2.8 48.1 51.9 Federal 2001 36.2 42.2 11.9 3.4 5.6 0.6 48.6 51.4 State 2002 36.7 44.1 8.4 6.5 2.7 1.6 46.3 53.7 Federal 2004 41.0 45.6 1.8 5.2 5.5 0.9 47.9 52.1 State 2006 44.5 40.1 2.2 4.8 6.3 2.2 52.1 47.9 Federal 2007 44.4 40.9 0.7 5.5 7.6 0.2 0.8 51.9 48.1

For most of the period covered by these tables Mawson has been a LIB electorate at both Federal and State levels, even if marginally so. This changed at the State election of 2006, and the change was followed up at the Federal election of 2007. The area is now represented by newly-elected ALP Members in both Parliaments: the Member for Mawson in the State Parliament is the ALP Member Leon Bignell and the Member for Kingston in the Federal Parliament is Amanda Rishworth.

At the 2007 Federal election the ALP share of all first preference votes increased by 3.4 percentage points (from 41% of all first preferences in 2004 to 44.4% in 2007), all of which can be assumed to have come from the LIB vote given that the LIB share of first preferences dropped by 4.7 percentage points (from 45.6% of first preferences in 2004 to 40.9% in 2007).

The fact that the drop in LIB support did not completely transfer across to the ALP seems to indicate a degree of disaffection with the LIB Member or Federal LIB government, to the extent that some voters who had previously voted LIB transferred their votes to Family First or other minor parties. This leakage of the LIB vote was salvaged to some extent by the return of some of those LIB votes when preferences were distributed – in the end when preferences were distributed the LIB two party preferred vote only declined by 4% compared to the 4.7% drop in first preferences. Nonetheless, the seat was marginal and a 4% drop in the 2PP vote was enough for the seat to change hands to the ALP.

The situation was different at the State election of 2006. At that election the ALP candidate won more votes than the LIB sitting Member lost (the ALP first preference vote increased by 7.8 percentage points and the LIB share dropped by just 4 percentage points), so we know that the ALP won support from former LIB voters but also from voters who had previously voted DEM or IND. Then, when preferences were distributed, the ALP swing was reduced to just 5.8 percentage points, but given that the seat was marginal the resulting ALP 2PP of 52.1% was enough for the seat to change hands.

37 In summary, in 2006 the ALP candidate won votes from people who had formerly voted LIB and also from people who had voted DEM, IND or for other minor parties (except the Greens). By contrast, at the Federal election in 2007 the ALP candidate did not win all of the available LIB votes, let alone minor party support. The seat is now marginal ALP on both State and Federal figures but will now be represented in both Parliaments by ALP members, so we can expect the ALP vote to consolidate.

Mitchell

Mitchell is a southern suburbs electorate with two focal points. The first includes the post-war suburbs from Marion to Seaview Downs, which house two thirds of the Mitchell voters and are within the Federal seat of Boothby; the second centre covers the relatively recent outer suburban developments of Sheidow Park and Trott Park, which house the remaining third of Mitchell’s voters. This area is in the Federal seat of Kingston.

At the State level the electorate is represented by the sitting IND MP Kris Hanna, who won the seat as an ALP candidate in 1997 and 2002 but has since left the Party. At the Federal level Mitchell is now represented by the LIB Member for Boothby (Andrew Southcott) and the newly-elected ALP Member for Kingston (Amanda Rishworth).

Table 30: How the voters within the current State seat of Mitchell voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred result ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL (booth + dec votes) First parties IND ALP LIB ALP IND (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 33.6 51.1 9.5 3.4 2.4 41.8 58.2 Federal 1996 37.5 45.8 13.3 1.9 1.0 0.5 45.9 54.1 State 1997 38.3 40.0 16.8 4.8 50.6 49.4 Federal 1998 38.6 40.0 10.9 9.9 0.6 50.0 50.0 Federal 2001 35.0 41.3 16.4 2.1 4.3 0.9 49.8 50.2 State 2002 43.5 38.0 8.0 4.7 2.0 3.9 54.7 45.3 Federal 2004 41.2 46.0 2.1 5.2 4.2 0.8 0.5 48.0 52.0 State 2006 40.5 20.9 1.6 3.1 5.2 2.1 26.6 65.2 34.8 49.4 50.6 Federal 2007 43.4 40.6 1.3 6.8 3.5 0.5 4.0 53.4 46.6

The seat is a marginal one. At State elections it has been a marginal ALP seat and at Federal elections the area has voted LIB, marginally, until the 2007 Federal election, when it did swing to Labor. Considering that the seat has been represented in the State Parliament by an ALP/IND Member and in the Federal Parliament by LIB Members, it is not surprising to see this duality.

At the 2007 Federal election the ALP candidates increased their share of the first preference vote in Mitchell from 41.2% in 2004 to 43.4% in 2007, a relatively small increase of 2.2 percentage points. The LIB vote dropped by much more – 5.4 percentage points (from 46% in 2004 to 40.6% in 2007). So, fewer than half of the

38 available LIB votes transferred across to the ALP candidates – most went to the minor parties or IND candidates. This indicates that the determining factor for the LIB voters was not so much an attraction to the ALP candidates but a disaffection with the sitting LIB Members or the Federal Liberal government.

Once preferences were distributed, this swing towards the ALP (2.2 percentage points in the first preference vote) was amplified and became a stronger swing of 5.4 percentage points in the two party preferred vote, and the resulting two party preferred vote was 53.4% ALP to 46.6% LIB. For the first time in the period covered by these tables the voters of the area expressed a preference to be represented by an ALP Member in the Federal Parliament.

This is not a safe seat where an IND candidate has managed to split the vote of the strongest party; instead it is a seat where the IND candidate has had to gain support from voters across the board. In fact most of that support (17.1 percentage points of the first preference vote) came from voters who had previously supported the LIB candidates, and only a maximum of 3 percentage points came from the ALP side, with the possibility that even these votes went to the Greens, in which case it was former DEM and former LIB voters who made Kris Hanna’s election possible.

Morialta

This seat takes in the north-eastern suburbs of Paradise and Athelstone and then extends into the Hills to cover the townships of Montacute and Norton Summit and their supporting areas. The Hills townships are within the Federal seat of Mayo and house about 10% of Morialta’s voters, with the vast majority of Morialta’s voters living in Sturt.

Until 2006 Morialta was represented in both Parliaments by LIB Members: It is still represented in the Federal Parliament by the Member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne (LIB) and the Member for Mayo, Alexander Downer, but at the State election of 2006, the ALP candidate Lindsay Simmons won the seat from the LIB sitting Member.

Table 31: How the voters within the current State seat of Morialta voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred result ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL (booth + dec votes) First parties IND ALP LIB IND LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 26.2 54.9 9.5 0.3 2.0 6.3 35.0 65.0 Federal 1996 33.3 52.6 10.4 2.1 0.6 1.0 40.9 59.1 State 1997 33.1 43.0 17.1 6.8 44.7 55.3 Federal 1998 31.9 42.1 17.1 8.2 0.7 47.3 52.7 Federal 2001 30.0 48.4 12.9 3.1 2.2 3.3 43.0 57.0 State 2002 36.6 42.9 9.7 0.2 5.2 5.3 0.1 46.7 53.3 Federal 2004 35.8 49.3 2.2 5.3 5.3 0.6 1.5 45.0 55.0 41.2 58.8 State 2006 48.3 35.2 2.9 6.2 5.5 1.9 58.0 42.0 Federal 2007 43.9 44.6 1.1 6.1 3.8 0.5 50.8 49.2

At the Federal election of 2007 the ALP share of all first preference votes increased by 8.1 percentage points (from 35.8% in 2004 to 43.9% in 2007) and the LIB share declined by just 4.7 percentage points (from 49.3% to 44.6%). Another 3.4 percentage points of the first preference vote came to the ALP candidate from people who had previously voted for the minor parties or IND candidates.

The 8.1 percentage point swing to the ALP in first preferences translated into a smaller swing (just 5.8 percentage points) when preferences were distributed to give the final 2PP result. But that was just enough for the area to have elected an ALP Member.

Something quite similar happened at the State election of 2006. The ALP candidate won 48.3% of the first preference vote, a massive swing of 11.3 percentage points on 2002 (from 35.8% of all first preferences in 2002 to 48.3% in 2006). The LIB first preference vote dropped by 7.7 percentage points so they supplied most of the ALP swing, but the remaining 3.6 percentage points came from the minor parties. At the same time the Greens managed to win over about half of the people who had formerly voted DEM. When the final distribution of preferences took place the initial swing of 11.7 percentage points translated quite neatly across into a swing of 11.3 percentage points in the 2PP. The ALP 2PP result rose from 46.7% in 2002 to 58.0% on a 2PP basis, and Lindsay Simmons won the seat resoundingly for the ALP.

Compared to the 2PP swing of 11.3 percentage points in 2006, the swing of 5.8 percentage points at the Federal election of 2007 seems half-hearted, but Sturt was hard-fought and the average swing across all of Sturt was 5.9 percentage points.

Morphett

Table 32: How the voters within the current State seat of Morphett voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 23.7 65.4 7.2 3.6 0.1 28.7 71.3 Federal 1996 28.0 60.4 7.8 2.4 0.4 1.1 34.0 66.0 State 1997 28.4 53.3 17.9 0.5 38.2 61.8 Federal 1998 29.8 53.0 7.9 2.0 7.4 38.7 61.3 Federal 2001 28.4 54.8 10.1 3.5 2.9 0.3 38.3 61.7 State 2002 31.3 54.6 7.0 5.2 1.8 39.9 60.1 Federal 2004 34.9 55.2 1.5 5.1 1.7 0.6 1.2 40.9 59.1 State 2006 36.5 49.1 3.1 7.4 3.9 44.6 55.4 Federal 2007 38.2 49.1 2.1 6.9 1.7 0.6 1.4 46.3 53.7

40 The electorate of Morphett focuses on the newly-revived beachside centre of Glenelg and its surrounding old beachside suburbs. About 80% of Morphett’s voters live in the Federal seat of Hindmarsh, and the remaining 20% are in Boothby.

The voters of Morphett vote LIB at both State and Federal elections – even at this last Federal election. They are represented in the Federal Parliament by the ALP Member for Hindmarsh, Steve Georganas, and the LIB Member for Boothby, Andrew Southcott, and in the State Parliament by the LIB Member for Morphett, Duncan McFetridge, who took over the seat from the retiring LIB Member in 2002.

Morphett has been a strong LIB seat, but has weakened at recent elections. Still, at all of the elections in the time series, the LIB candidates would have won the seat with first preferences alone or with just a handful of preferences.

Perhaps surprisingly, given that most of the voters in the seat are represented in the Federal Parliament by an ALP Member, the ALP vote is not markedly stronger at Federal elections than at State elections in this area. Morphett really does not vote very differently at Federal or State elections.

At the recent Federal election in 2007, there was quite a strong swing away from LIB in first preference votes. The LIB candidates’ share of all first preference votes dropped by 6.1 percentage points (from 55.2% to 49.1%). Only about two thirds of these votes went to the ALP, which we can see from the fact that the ALP share of all first preference votes increased by 3.3 percentage points from 34.9% in 2004 to 38.2% in 2007. The remaining 2.8 percentage points went to the minor parties – mostly to the Greens.

This does not look like a case of the ALP candidates being particularly popular and drawing votes away from LIB; it also signals a degree of disaffection amongst some LIB voters, some of whom gave their votes to the minor parties.

When preferences were distributed to find the 2PP result for the seat in 2007, the ALP’s 3.3 percentage point increase in the first preference vote was amplified by the relatively large Greens vote into a two party preferred swing of 5.4 percentage points. The final two party preferred result for the seat was 46.3% ALP to 53.7% LIB so the seat stayed LIB, but became marginal. That 2PP swing to the ALP was slightly higher than the swing across all of Hindmarsh (5%) and much higher than the swing in Boothby (2.5%).

At the State election of 2006 the swing to the ALP was of a different kind, in the sense that it was much more direct. The LIB share of first preference votes fell by 5.5 percentage points from 55.2% to just 49.1%, and the ALP picked up almost all of those votes. The ALP share of first preference votes grew by 5.2 percentage points from 34.9% to just 38.2%. Then, when preferences were distributed, the swing was tempered and stood at 4.7 percentage points. That produced a final 2PP vote for the seat of 44.6% ALP to 55.4% LIB in 2006.

What this means is that in 2006 preferences helped the LIB sitting member and in 2007 they helped the ALP candidates. The result is that in Morphett the State election of 2006 was not the highpoint for the ALP vote in the area, the Federal election of 2007 was.

41 Mt Gambier

The State seat of Mt Gambier takes in the rural centre of Mt Gambier and the small supporting townships within a radius of about 50kms. All of this electorate is within the Federal seat of Barker. Mt Gambier is represented in the State Parliament by the IND Member Rory McEwen, who won the seat from the retiring LIB Member at the State election of 1997. In the Federal Parliament it is represented by the LIB Member for Barker, Patrick Secker.

In the absence of Mr McEwen, this seat votes LIB and would return a LIB Member to both Parliaments. The rethrows of ballot papers at State elections, and the results at Federal elections, show that the 2PP vote across the seat is consistently LIB, even if not as strongly so at the two most recent elections.

Table 33: How the voters within the current State seat of Mt. Gambier voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred result ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL (booth + dec votes) First parties IND ALP LIB ALP IND LIB IND (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 24.0 68.1 5.1 0.1 2.7 28.5 71.5 Fed 1996 31.7 54.5 9.5 3.4 0.8 37.5 62.5 State 1997 22.0 41.5 12.0 24.6 37.7 62.3 49.9 50.1 Fed 1998 29.0 39.9 4.7 1.1 13.8 11.6 45.9 54.1 Fed 2001 29.5 49.0 5.5 2.8 9.0 4.2 40.2 59.8 State 2002 17.2 19.7 2.1 1.9 59.0 47.9 52.1 21.9 78.1 23.4 76.6 Fed 2004 25.2 53.1 1.4 4.1 5.8 7.4 1.6 1.3 33.7 66.3 State 2006 22.8 33.8 1.6 1.8 4.1 36.0 44.4 55.6 43.8 56.2 Fed 2007 38.2 42.1 2.4 5.1 6.2 5.9 47.8 52.2

At the most recent Federal election, in 2007, the ALP share of first preferences increased by 13 percentage points, a very strong swing, from 25.2% of first preferences in 2004 to 38.2% in 2007. Most of the votes came from people who had previously voted LIB – the LIB first preference vote dropped by 11 percentage points from 53.1% to 42.1% of first preferences. Such big swings have not been unusual for this seat. To a very real extent the IND Member has pared down the ALP and LIB first preference support to its core at State elections and it may now seem much easier for people who have voted IND at State elections to change their vote from time to time.

So even at Federal elections there has been nothing stable about the share of the vote that the LIB or ALP candidates have won.

As in many other seats around the State, the ALP candidates and also the Greens candidates have been increasing their share of first preferences steadily over the period.

Napier

Napier is a northern suburban seat that covers most of the suburbs of Elizabeth, and then stretches out into the foothills to the east, taking in One Tree Hill. It lies entirely within the Federal seat of Wakefield. Napier votes strongly for Labor at both Federal and State elections. In the State Parliament the area is represented by the ALP Member for Napier, Michael O’Brien, who won the seat in 2002 when the sitting ALP Member contested another seat. For the period covered by these tables the area was represented in the Federal Parliament by a LIB Member, but the recent election result means that the newly-elected Labor Member for Wakefield, Nick Champion, will represented Napier voters.

Table 34: How the voters within the current State seat of Napier voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (No.) (%) (%)

State 1993 40.0 32.1 7.5 2.3 18.1 55.7 44.3 Federal 1996 49.3 31.6 14.1 3.0 2.0 58.9 41.1 State 1997 55.4 22.1 22.5 70.0 30.0 Federal 1998 49.5 23.9 9.2 17.4 64.0 36.0 Federal 2001 46.8 29.5 9.9 3.0 10.8 59.1 40.9 State 2002 52.2 28.2 8.7 10.9 64.1 35.9 Federal 2004 49.6 37.2 1.6 3.6 5.6 2.4 56.0 44.0 State 2006 61.6 18.4 3.8 5.7 10.6 74.3 25.7 Federal 2007 57.7 30.0 1.1 3.6 5.6 2.0 65.0 35.0

Like voters in several other ALP electorates which have had LIB representatives in the Federal Parliament, Napier voters have made a distinction between Federal and State elections and have given a little more support to Labor candidates at State elections and to LIB candidates at Federal elections. Still, their orientation has been clear – ALP candidates at any election would have won the seat on first preferences, or with the help of a handful of preferences from minor parties.

At the Federal election of 2007 the LIB first preference vote dropped from 37.2% of all first preferences to 30%, a fall of 7.2 percentage points. The ALP won an increase of 8.1 percentage points from 49.6% of first preferences in 2004 to 57.7% in 2007, so it seems to have won all of the LIB votes and another 0.9 percentage points from people who previously voted for DEM or One Nation candidates.

It is worth noting that it is a long time since the LIB vote has been as high as 30% at State elections in this area, so it is clear that those LIB voters who transferred their votes would not have voted LIB at a State election. This seems to be another example of people who have previously been happy to vote ALP at State elections but LIB at Federal elections, changing their minds.

For the first time, a Federal ALP candidate won more than 50% of the first preference vote in this area. Once preferences were distributed the 8.1 percentage point swing in first preferences was amplified by preferences into a 9 percentage point swing on a 2PP basis and the final ALP 2PP vote was 65%. While this is a strong achievement the final 2PP vote in the area is still well below that achieved by Michael O’Brien at the State election of 2006 – 74.3%.

Newland

Newland lies north east of the city and north of the Torrens River and comprises suburbs developed during the 1960s and 1970s. About 70% of Newland’s voters – centred on Tea Tree Gully – are in Makin and the remaining 30% of Newland’s voters live in Sturt.

The area is represented in the State Parliament by the ALP Member for Newland, Tom Kenyon, who won the seat in 2006 from the retiring LIB Member. In the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the newly-elected ALP Member for Makin, Tony Zappia, and the LIB Member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne.

Table 35: How the voters within the current State seat of Newland voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 25.4 61.2 10.1 0.1 3.2 32.9 67.1 Federal 1996 34.2 51.5 9.7 2.6 0.6 1.4 42.1 57.9 State 1997 31.6 46.7 20.6 0.3 0.8 42.8 57.2 Federal 1998 31.4 45.3 12.9 9.5 1.0 47.6 52.4 Federal 2001 30.4 51.0 11.1 2.6 4.2 0.7 40.2 59.8 State 2002 35.8 45.0 9.9 6.8 2.5 44.5 55.5 Federal 2004 37.4 49.7 2.0 4.4 4.9 0.8 0.7 43.6 56.4 State 2006 46.3 34.4 3.0 5.1 7.0 2.6 1.5 56.8 43.2 Federal 2007 44.4 44.1 1.4 5.6 3.8 0.7 50.9 49.1

Like its neighbour Morialta, Newland has voted Liberal at each State and Federal election over the period, until 2006 and now again in 2007.

At the Federal election of 2007, the ALP candidates’ share of the first preference vote increased from 37.4% in 2004 to 44.4%, a boost of 7 percentage points. Only about 5.6 percentage points came from LIB voters – the LIB candidates’ share of first preferences fell from 49.7% in 2004 to 44.1% in 2007. So the ALP won support from people who had previously voted for DEM, Family First or IND candidates, as well as those LIB voters. The Greens did not lose votes to the ALP but instead improved their vote marginally.

44 The outcome, once preferences were distributed, was that the 7 percentage point swing was translated neatly into a 7.3 percentage point swing in the 2PP vote, and that was enough to take the ALP vote for the area to 50.9%. Morialta would have elected an ALP Member to the Federal Parliament in 2007.

The State election of 2006 involved even larger swings, but of a different kind. Almost all of the new votes that the ALP candidate won in 2006 came from people who had previously voted LIB. The ALP share of the first preference vote increased by 10.5 percentage points and the LIB vote declined by 10.6 percentage points. Then when preferences were distributed the swing was amplified by the Greens and DEM voters, and it became a swing of 12.3 percentage points, taking the ALP vote into safe territory at ALP 2PP 56.8%.

The highpoint for the ALP vote in this seat over the period covered by these tables is the State election of 2006, and the ALP 2PP result then of 56.8%.

Norwood

The State electorate of Norwood was originally centred on the suburb of Norwood, and still includes it, but has been extended across the River Torrens to take in Vale Park and parts of Klemzig. These areas, and also the eastern suburbs of the electorate, lie within the Federal seat of Sturt, while the original core of the electorate lies within the Federal seat of Adelaide. Almost 60% of the Norwood voters live in the Federal seat of Adelaide and about 40% in Sturt.

In the State Parliament the Member for Norwood is the ALP Member, Vini Ciccarello, who won the seat from the LIB sitting Member in 1997. In the Federal Parliament the seat of Adelaide is also represented by an ALP Member, Kate Ellis. The Federal seat of Sturt is held by a LIB Member, Christopher Pyne.

Table 36: How the voters within the current State seat of Norwood voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 35.0 50.6 11.7 2.6 0.2 42.7 57.3 Federal 1996 36.8 49.1 9.8 3.1 0.8 0.4 45.4 54.6 State 1997 40.8 40.8 12.6 3.7 2.1 51.7 48.3 Federal 1998 36.6 44.0 11.9 0.7 5.8 1.0 46.6 53.4 Federal 2001 32.7 46.6 11.1 6.0 2.7 1.0 45.8 54.2 State 2002 39.5 41.7 7.7 5.8 2.9 2.4 50.5 49.5 Federal 2004 40.1 46.3 2.0 7.8 2.7 0.3 0.7 49.3 50.7 State 2006 43.1 40.3 2.6 8.3 2.5 1.3 1.9 54.2 45.8 Federal 2007 44.8 42.4 1.2 9.3 2.2 0.1 54.3 45.7

45 Norwood is marginal ALP at State elections and has been contested very strongly by both of the major parties. At Federal elections the first preference ALP vote in Norwood is generally weaker than at State elections and the LIB first preference vote has been stronger, to the extent that the area would normally have returned a LIB Member to the Federal Parliament, but at the most recent Federal election in 2007 the swing towards the ALP would have been big enough to have put the area into ALP hands Federally too.

The ALP first preference vote in 2007 was 44.8%, a boost of 4.7 percentage points on the results at the Federal election of 2004. Most of that – 3.9 percentage points of it – came from the LIB vote, and the remaining portion came from the minor parties. Winning votes from all sectors has been a recipe for big swings in other seats, and it would have worked here too, but it has not been achieved at the State level. In 2006 the ALP sitting Member achieved a swing of 3.6 percentage points in the first preference vote (bringing the ALP share of first preferences up from 39.5% to 43.1%) but only 1.4 percentage points came from the LIB vote – in general it seems that the votes came from the people who had previously voted Democrat.

Remarkably, Norwood behaves a lot like Stuart. Both the ALP share of the first preference vote and the LIB share of the first preference vote has been incredibly stable, particularly at State elections, and transfers rarely occur between the major parties:

· At the State election of 2006 when other seats across the State showed large swings towards the ALP, the ALP first preference vote increased in Norwood by 3.6 percentage points, almost all at the expense of the minor parties. The LIB share of first preferences dropped by just 1.4 percentage points; · At the Federal election of 2004, the ALP share of the first preference vote increased by 7.4 percentage points but almost none of this came from the LIB first preference vote – it was all from people who had previously voted for the Democrat candidates; · At the State election of 2002 the ALP first preference vote dropped by just 1.3 percentage points and the LIB share grew by 0.9 percentage points, no more than a handful of votes; · At the Federal election of 2001 the ALP candidates lost 3.9 percentage points of the first preference vote and 2.6 points seem to have come from the LIB vote; and · At the Federal election of 1998 the LIB candidates lost 5.8 percentage points of the first preference vote but the ALP candidates lost votes too, so the votes did not transfer between the LIB and ALP candidates at all.

The exception to these results is the swing from the State election of 1993 to the State election of 1997, but there were enormous swings to the ALP and to DEM in every seat across the State in 1997. In Norwood the LIB share of first preference votes, boosted by the 1993 election, lost 9.8 percentage points and the ALP candidates took 6.8 of them.

Norwood behaves in a way which is polarised. Several other seats behave in this way too; Stuart is one of them. In these seats both the LIB vote and also the Labor vote are quite solid, and swings are relatively small.5 But if swings do happen, then they are mediated by the minor parties. If a major party is unpopular, the first preference vote for its candidates might fall but will not transfer directly across to the opposing party’s candidates – instead the minor parties benefit. Similarly when a major party is popular (as with the Liberal Party in 1996 and the Labor Party in 2006 and 2007) it is the minor party vote that is reduced in order to provide the swing.

5 Anyone who doubts that these are small swings should read the section on Reynell.

Norwood is constrained by strong allegiances, and is a very unusual seat.

Playford

The State seat of Playford sits entirely within the Federal seat of Makin, although they share a common boundary – Main North Road. The electorate extends from Gepps Cross to Para Hills and is typified by suburbs developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Playford votes Labor at both Federal and State elections and its representatives are now both ALP Members. Since 1997 the Member for Playford in the State Parliament has been Jack Snelling, who took over the seat from the retiring ALP Member. In the Federal Parliament, Makin has been represented by a LIB Member but, as a result of the 2007 election, the area is represented by the newly- elected ALP Member for Makin, Tony Zappia.

As indicated, until this most recent Federal election Makin has been represented by a LIB Federal Member, so it is not surprising to see that although this is a safe Labor seat the LIB vote has been sometimes 10 percentage points higher at Federal elections than at State elections.

Table 37: How the voters within the current State seat of Playford voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 43.6 41.9 8.2 6.3 52.2 47.8 Federal 1996 47.4 37.1 9.7 2.3 1.1 2.5 56.4 43.6 State 1997 49.5 27.7 17.8 4.6 0.3 63.2 36.8 Federal 1998 46.2 30.7 10.0 11.8 1.3 58.4 41.6 Federal 2001 44.8 37.2 10.0 2.4 5.6 54.9 45.1 State 2002 52.1 28.7 8.3 5.5 5.4 63.0 37.0 Federal 2004 50.6 37.5 1.7 3.7 4.5 1.0 1.0 56.4 43.6 State 2006 64.4 19.1 3.6 4.9 8.0 75.7 24.3 Federal 2007 59.8 30.0 1.4 3.8 3.8 1.2 65.7 34.3

As in many other State seats, the ALP share of the first preference vote has been growing steadily over the period, and has been boosted strongly at the two most recent elections. The majority of these new ALP voters have been voting LIB in the past, but quite a lot have come from minor parties too.

Playford is an interesting seat from the point of view of the Greens and DEM vote. Support for the Democrats was no bigger or smaller than other similar electorates, and has since declined to almost nothing, just as in most other electorates. But in most other electorates the Greens have been growing steadily, taking over the DEM vote, whereas in Playford that has not happened.

At the recent Federal election of 2007, the ALP share of first preference votes increased from 50.6% in 2004 to 59.8% in 2007, a rise of 9.2 percentage points. The LIB share of the first preference vote dropped at the same time by 7.5 percentage points and the remaining 1.7 points were supplied by the minor parties. When preferences were distributed the 9.2 percentage point swing to Labor translated neatly across into a 9.3 percentage point swing in the two party preferred vote and the ALP 2PP vote rose from 56.4% in 2004 to 65.7% in 2007.

While this was quite a strong swing, and the ALP 2PP result was very strong, there is still a big gap between the Federal and State results for this area. At the State election of 2006 the swing in first preference votes was 12.3 percentage points, there was a 12.7 percentage point swing to the ALP in the two party preferred result, and the ALP 2PP for Playford stands at 75.7%, a neat 10 percentage points higher again than the Federal result in the area.

The highpoint for the ALP vote in this area is clearly the State election result of 2006 and the ALP 2PP result at that election of 75.7%.

Port Adelaide

This State electorate has several components, although it is primarily focused on Port Adelaide. It also takes in the suburbs at the northern end of the Le Fevre Peninsula (arguably not a contiguous piece of land), as well as the suburbs of Mawson Lakes and (part of) Parafield Gardens which are to the north east of the Port across industrial land. The State electorate of Port Adelaide lies completely within the Federal seat of Port Adelaide.

Much like its neighbour Lee, Port Adelaide votes strongly Labor at both Federal and State elections, and is represented in both Parliaments by Labor Members. In the House of Assembly the ALP Member for Port Adelaide is Kevin Foley, who won the seat in 1993, and in the House of Representatives the ALP Member is Mark Butler.

Table 37: How the voters within the current State seat of Port Adelaide voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 46.5 32.2 6.8 1.4 13.0 59.3 40.7 Federal 1996 51.9 33.1 10.1 4.0 0.4 0.4 60.7 39.3 State 1997 62.9 21.2 14.8 1.1 72.1 27.9 Federal 1998 57.0 20.8 8.1 11.3 2.9 70.0 30.0 Federal 2001 54.2 25.5 9.0 3.6 6.9 0.8 67.4 32.6 State 2002 58.1 23.6 5.9 3.8 8.6 70.6 29.4 Federal 2004 55.7 32.9 1.8 4.8 3.7 1.1 62.2 37.8 State 2006 64.4 18.8 2.4 6.3 5.4 1.5 1.3 75.6 24.4 Federal 2007 57.8 27.0 2.0 8.1 5.2 67.6 32.4

ALP candidates for State elections in this area have fairly consistently won a higher proportion of the first preference vote than ALP candidates at Federal elections. On the other hand, Port Adelaide voters have not differentiated between State and Federal candidates if they have been considering voting for the Liberal Party.

LIB candidates in this seat might expect to win about 20% of first preference votes and probably hope for 30%. At the most recent Federal election in 2007, the LIB share of the first preference vote declined by 5.9 percentage points from 32.9% in 2004 to 27% in 2007. Most of these votes did not transfer to the ALP candidate. In fact, the ALP share of the first preference vote rose by only 2.1 percentage points, so the ALP candidate did not even win the majority of these former LIB voters. Instead many more of these available LIB votes went to the minor parties, and in particular to the Greens.

This is consistent with a pattern in Port Adelaide that when votes are lost by the major parties they transfer to the minor parties, rather than directly across to the opposing major party. It happened when the LIB share of first preferences declined in 1998 (the LIB first preference vote dropped by 12.3 percentage points but only 5.1 went to the ALP) and when the ALP vote fell in 2002 (the ALP first preference vote dropped by 4.8 percentage points but only 2.4 went to the LIB candidates). And it works the other way too: If a major party wins extra votes they come from the minor parties. That is what happened at the Federal election of 2004 when the LIB share of first preferences increased by 7.4 percentage points but none of them came from the ALP because the ALP share grew too – it all came from the minor parties.

The State election of 2006 looks like the only exception to this polarised behaviour. In 2006 the ALP share of the first preference vote increased by 6.3 percentage points, while 4.8 of that came from the LIB vote. Another 1.5 percentage points came from the minor parties, but it is clear that there was a fairly direct transfer of votes from LIB to the ALP at that election. That is, some people who had voted LIB consistently, changed their minds and voted Labor.

That kind of direct transfer of votes was not achieved at the Federal election of 2007. This makes Port Adelaide look like a very good example of a polarised electorate, just like Norwood, although the swings in Port Adelaide are a little stronger and the LIB voters in Port Adelaide did not behave in a completely polarised way in 2006.

Ramsay

The electorate of Ramsay takes in suburbs around Salisbury Downs, includes Parafield Airport, and borders the RAAF airbase Edinburgh. The area was developed predominantly between the 1970s and the 1990s. The boundary between the Federal seats of Wakefield and Port Adelaide runs through Ramsay: about one in three Ramsay voters live in suburbs within the Federal seat of Wakefield and two thirds in the Federal seat of Port Adelaide.

Ramsay votes Labor at both State and Federal elections. It is represented in both Parliaments by ALP Members (although those Ramsay voters in Wakefield have only just gained an ALP Member). In the State Parliament the ALP Member for Ramsay is the Premier, Mike Rann, and in the Federal Parliament the Members for Wakefield and Port Adelaide are the ALP Members Nick Champion and Mark Butler. Both are new to the Federal Parliament and the Member for Wakefield takes over his seat from the LIB sitting Member.

Table 38: How the voters within the current State seat of Ramsay voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 54.6 34.7 10.7 60.3 39.7 Federal 1996 49.7 30.7 14.8 2.7 2.0 59.3 40.7 State 1997 56.3 22.1 15.7 5.5 0.3 69.0 31.0 Federal 1998 52.4 23.0 9.1 15.5 65.1 34.9 Federal 2001 49.3 27.0 11.3 2.5 10.0 62.0 38.0 State 2002 62.7 22.7 6.8 7.9 70.8 29.2 Federal 2004 51.7 34.5 2.1 3.6 5.9 2.2 58.6 41.4 State 2006 72.0 18.2 3.6 4.6 1.7 78.5 21.5 Federal 2007 60.9 24.9 1.6 5.5 6.3 0.8 69.7 30.3

Like Port Adelaide and Norwood, Ramsay seems to be another quite polarised seat although something strange happened in 2007 rather than in 2006. Evidence of its polarity are these swings in the first preference vote:

· A drop in the LIB share of first preferences votes in 1997 of 12.7 percentage points, but only 1.7 percentage points going to Labor; · A drop in the LIB share of first preferences votes in 1998 of 7.7 percentage points, but only 2.7 percentage points going to Labor; · A rise of 6.4 percentage points in the ALP first preference vote at the State election of 2002 but a rise (not fall) in the LIB share of first preferences of 0.6 percentage points; · A rise of 7.5 percentage points in the LIB first preference vote at the Federal election of 2004 but a rise (not fall) of 2.4 percentage points in the ALP share; and · A rise of 9.3 percentage points in the ALP first preference vote at the State election of 2006 and a fall of less than half that (4.5 percentage points) in the LIB share.

In each of these cases the change in the ALP vote seems almost unrelated to the change in the LIB vote. Instead, if the ALP is popular at least as many votes will be attracted from minor parties as from Liberal voters. Similarly, disaffected voters from either of the major parties will favour the minor parties to the opposing major party.

The limit to this pattern is reached when the minor parties have lost all but their own core voters. But even this cannot explain what happened in 2007, when Ramsay behaved just like most seats around the State and LIB votes transferred directly across to the ALP and did not pass through the minor parties at all. The minor parties stayed relatively aloof of the turmoil, increasing their share of the first preference vote by just 0.4 percentage points. Meanwhile the LIB share of first preferences dropped by 9.6 percentage points – a big drop – and the ALP picked up 9.2 percentage points, almost all of the votes the LIB candidates lost.

The size of this swing, and its direct nature, has no precedent in Ramsay, at least over the period we are covering. Meanwhile, another indicator of the separate lives of Labor and Liberal in Ramsay is that while the ALP vote has been growing steadily in Ramsay over this period, the LIB vote has barely changed.

The high point for the ALP vote in Ramsay is still very clearly the State election result of 2006 (ALP 2PP of 78.5%) but the interesting election may have been the 2007 election.

Reynell

The State electorate of Reynell was originally centred on the township of Reynella and its surrounding suburbs, but Reynell has gradually been moved south and has lost Reynella itself. The seat now contains Reynella South and the Morphett Vale suburbs. It sits entirely within the Federal seat of Kingston. The seat is represented in the State Parliament by the ALP Member, Gay Thompson, who won the seat from the LIB Member in 1997, and in the Federal Parliament by the newly-elected ALP Federal Member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth.

Table 40: How the voters within the current State seat of Reynell voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 35.7 48.4 8.3 0.9 6.7 45.2 54.8 Federal 1996 41.8 40.4 9.9 2.1 2.9 2.8 50.3 49.7 State 1997 36.2 38.4 18.8 4.1 2.5 51.6 48.4 Federal 1998 42.1 35.6 9.2 10.4 2.6 54.0 46.0 Federal 2001 41.9 37.0 11.7 2.5 6.8 53.9 46.1 State 2002 43.2 33.4 6.7 3.8 6.9 6.0 0.1 55.8 44.2 Federal 2004 45.3 40.7 2.2 4.4 6.3 1.1 51.8 48.2 State 2006 58.9 23.5 2.2 4.7 8.7 2.0 67.6 32.4 Federal 2007 50.4 36.4 1.0 4.6 6.4 0.3 0.9 57.2 42.8

Until this most recent Federal election, the sitting Member for Kingston has been a Liberal, so it is not surprising to see that voters in this seat have been happier to vote LIB at Federal elections than at State elections. But they seem to have made little distinction in relation to the Federal and State candidates for the ALP – the Labor vote has simply been growing steadily over the period.

At the 2007 Federal election, the ALP candidate’s share of the first preference vote increased by 5.1 percentage points from 45.3% of all first preferences in 2004 to 50.4% in 2007. People who had voted LIB in 2004 supplied most of these new Labor votes. The LIB share of the first preference vote dropped by 4.3 percentage points from 40.7% to 36.4%. The transfer of votes was quite direct and it does not look at all

51 like disaffected LIB voters sending their votes to minor parties, but instead it looks quite clearly to be a case of voters being attracted to the ALP from the Liberal Party and also from the minor parties, who contributed 0.8 percentage points to the ALP candidate’s increased share of first preferences.

Still the increased ALP vote in 2007 in this area came almost completely from people who had previously voted LIB. By comparison, a much broader range of new voters attracted to the ALP at the State election of 2006 brought an even bigger swing for the sitting ALP Member. At that State election of 2006 the sitting ALP Member achieved a swing of mammoth proportions – 15.7 percent of first preference votes – increasing the ALP share of first preferences to 58.9% from 43.2% in 2002. About two thirds of these new ALP votes (9.9 percentage points) came from people who had previously voted LIB, and another third (5.9 percentage points) came from people who had previously voted for minor parties.

In 2007, when preferences were distributed, the first preference swing to Labor of 5.1 percentage points translated fairly neatly into a two party preferred swing of 5.4 percentage points. In 2006 the distribution of preferences reduced the first preference swing to Labor of 15.7 percentage points to a two party preferred swing of 11.8 percentage points.

At the Federal and State elections of 2001 and 2002 there was very little difference between the ALP 2PP results, whereas at the Federal and State elections of 2006 and 2007 there is now a 10 percentage point difference in the ALP vote in this area. The highpoint for the ALP is clearly the 2006 State result, of 67.6% on a 2PP basis.

Schubert

Named after the winemaker Max Schubert, this seat appropriately covers the Barossa Valley, and extends eastwards to the River Murray which forms its eastern boundary. About two thirds of Schubert’s voters live in the Barossa and surrounding areas covered by the Federal seat of Barker, a little under a third live in areas from Kersbrook to Williamstown covered by the Federal seat of Mayo and the remaining small number live in Wakefield (these voters are predominantly close to Greenock or One Tree Hill).

Schubert votes solidly LIB and for most of this period has been represented in both Parliaments by LIB Members. In the State Parliament the Member for Schubert is the LIB Member, Ivan Venning, who won an earlier version of the seat at a by-election in 1990 from a retiring LIB Member. In the Federal Parliament the Members for Barker and Mayo are Liberal (Patrick Secker and Alexander Downer respectively) and Wakefield has been LIB too, but is now represented by the ALP Member Nick Champion.

LIB candidates in this area might have always expected to win the seat with a handful of preferences, and hoped to win without the help of preferences at all. But surprisingly enough (given that they have been represented by LIB Members in both Parliaments) voters have made distinctions between State and Federal elections, and support for LIB candidates has been a little stronger at Federal elections.

In addition, ALP support (the ALP share of first preferences) has been gradually strengthening and the LIB vote has been gradually weakening, a trend we have seen emerging in almost every electorate.

52 Table 41: How the voters within the current State seat of Schubert voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 19.0 69.3 9.3 2.0 0.5 26.1 73.9 Federal 1996 19.7 63.0 12.4 2.9 1.9 27.9 72.1 State 1997 18.7 53.3 21.8 6.3 35.1 64.9 Federal 1998 19.4 51.5 9.5 1.9 15.8 2.0 31.9 68.1 Federal 2001 21.6 56.3 10.2 4.1 7.3 0.4 33.7 66.3 State 2002 21.7 48.3 8.7 4.2 0.1 4.5 8.0 4.4 36.3 63.7 Federal 2004 22.3 54.7 1.6 6.2 5.2 2.9 1.7 5.4 33.9 66.1 State 2006 33.7 47.7 3.6 7.1 7.9 43.5 56.5 Federal 2007 32.3 50.8 1.8 7.0 4.7 2.9 0.5 41.3 58.7

Schubert seems to be quite a polarised electorate, with the rise and fall of LIB and ALP support appearing to be unrelated:

· In 1998 the LIB share of first preferences dropped by 11.5 percentage points but the ALP share increased by only 0.3 percentage points; · In 2006 the ALP share of first preferences grew by a massive 12.0 percentage points. Almost all of this growth came from the Democrats and other minor parties and only 0.6 percentage points came from the LIB vote; and · In 2007 the ALP share of the first preference vote grew by 10 percentage points but the LIB share dropped by only 4.1 percentage points – the majority of new ALP votes again came from the minor parties.

Unlike Ramsay and Port Adelaide, Schubert has been a consistently polarised electorate. Schubert did not experience unusual results in 2006 nor even in 2007. In Schubert there have sometimes been swings much bigger than have occurred in Norwood but the swings are mediated by the minor parties – for the period covered by these tables there has been no direct large-scale transfers of votes from Labor to Liberal or vice versa.

In Schubert the relative importance of the Greens and Family First will be critical to the balance between Labor and Liberal. The Greens are likely to send more preferences to Labor and Family First is likely to send more preferences to LIB.

Stuart

Like Giles, and to some extent Flinders, Stuart is a big electorate. It is centred on Port Augusta, taking in almost all of the pastoral and mining area to the north and east, but it also takes in a large section of the wheat-growing areas of the mid-north and extends southwards to the River Murray at Cadell and Blanchetown, and finally

53 takes in Barossa hinterland at Kapunda and Truro. About 80% of Stuart’s voters are in the Federal seat of Grey but 10% live in Barker and 10% in Wakefield.

Table 42: How the voters within the current State seat of Stuart voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 32.9 50.8 5.0 1.5 9.9 39.7 60.3 Federal 1996 34.3 54.9 8.0 2.2 0.7 39.7 60.3 State 1997 35.4 44.8 13.3 1.6 4.9 46.5 53.5 Federal 1998 27.8 45.6 5.8 1.7 18.0 1.2 40.3 59.7 Federal 2001 30.7 52.5 4.9 2.6 9.3 40.5 59.5 State 2002 39.5 44.7 4.4 0.5 0.4 10.5 48.0 52.0 Federal 2004 30.8 54.4 2.1 3.8 5.3 0.6 2.8 0.1 37.1 62.9 State 2006 45.5 44.4 1.6 3.5 4.4 0.6 49.4 50.6 Federal 2007 40.5 46.2 1.3 4.5 4.3 2.2 0.1 0.9 47.3 52.7

Stuart has been represented in both the Federal and the State Parliaments by LIB Members. The Member for Stuart in the State Parliament is the LIB Member, Graham Gunn, who has represented the area since 1970. The Federal Member for Grey is the newly-elected LIB Member, Rowan Ramsey. The LIB Member for Barker is Patrick Secker and the ALP Member for Wakefield is the newly elected Nick Champion.

Unlike many of the LIB seats outside Adelaide, Stuart is not a safe seat. It is strongly contested by both major parties, particularly at State elections, and at State elections it is quite marginal. At Federal elections, the Labor first preference vote has generally been fairly weak and the LIB result has been stronger.

The time series tables show many characteristics that are common to many of the electorates across the State – the ALP first preference vote has been growing steadily, there is a stronger LIB vote at Federal than at State elections, and the DEM vote has been declining while the Greens have been increasing their share. The NAT candidates in this seat have been supported, but not to any great extent. None of this is surprising.

What is completely unexpected is the absolute regularity of the LIB share of first preferences at the State elections over this period. Apart from the 1993 election, which was exceptional, the LIB share of the first preference vote was 44.8% in 1997, 44.7% in 2002 and 44.4% in 2006.

Over the same period the LIB share of first preferences at Federal elections has varied from 52.5% to 46.2%. More particularly the ALP share of first preferences at these same State elections has been growing steadily and this growth has been entirely at the expense of the minor parties. At the State election of 2002 the ALP first preference vote grew by 5 percentage points – all from minor parties. Again, in 2006

54 when the ALP share of first preferences grew by 6 percentage points, it was drawn entirely from the minor parties. The LIB vote has not moved.

At Federal elections Stuart has generally acted in a very polarised way too. In 1998 both parties lost votes to One Nation, and both parties regained them again in 2001 and 2004 – neither party benefited. But at the 2007 Federal election Stuart did not behave in a polarised way at all. Just as we saw occur in Ramsay, the ALP first preference vote increased and a large proportion of the new ALP voters came from the LIB support base. The ALP first preference vote increased from 30.8% in 2004 to 40.5% in 2007, a rise of 9.7 percentage points, and the LIB share of first preferences dropped by 8.2 percentage points (from 54.4% to 46.2%). Another 1.5 percentage points were drawn from minor party supporters.

As with Ramsay this direct transfer of votes from LIB to the ALP in 2007 is unexpected.

Taylor

About half of Taylor’s voters live in the Paralowie and Burton suburbs and Globe Derby Park, the most northerly suburbs along Port Wakefield Road. These people are in the Federal seat of Port Adelaide. The other half of Taylor’s voters live nearby at Direk or Elizabeth South, neighbours to the RAAF airbase Edinburgh, or much further north in the horticultural areas centred on Virginia and Two Wells. These voters are in the Federal seat of Wakefield.

Taylor votes solidly Labor at both State and Federal elections, but until recently was partly represented in the Federal Parliament by a LIB Member in Wakefield. However, the 2007 election result means the newly-elected ALP Member for Wakefield, Nick Champion, now represents this area, along with the returned sitting ALP Member for Port Wakefield, Mark Butler. At the State level, the seat of Taylor has been held by the ALP Member for Taylor, Trish White, since she took over from the retiring ALP Member at a by-election in 1994.

Table 43: How the voters within the current State seat of Taylor voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family NAT Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 47.9 38.1 10.5 0.2 3.3 55.0 45.0 Federal 1996 48.5 32.2 14.2 2.7 0.4 1.9 57.7 42.3 State 1997 55.7 24.2 16.9 3.2 68.4 31.6 Federal 1998 49.2 26.2 8.7 0.1 15.5 0.2 61.9 38.1 Federal 2001 50.4 24.3 13.5 2.7 9.7 0.1 60.1 39.9 State 2002 59.8 25.4 6.9 7.9 67.7 32.3 Federal 2004 48.4 37.7 2.1 3.3 6.0 2.5 55.0 45.0 State 2006 68.4 17.4 2.3 3.7 8.2 77.4 22.6 Federal 2007 57.3 28.7 1.5 4.3 6.8 1.5 65.9 34.1

ALP candidates for the area have won the seat on first preferences alone at State elections, but would have needed a handful of preferences at Federal elections. At this most recent Federal election in 2007 the ALP candidates’ share of the first preference votes increased by 8.9 percentage points (from 48.4% of all first preferences in 2004 to 57.3% in 2007). There was a very direct transfer from LIB voters – the LIB share of the first preference vote dropped by 9 percentage points in 2007 from 37.7% to just 28.7%.

This is very similar to what happened at the State election of 2006, when there was a solid swing to Labor of 8.6 percentage points in first preferences and almost all of these new Labor votes (8 percentage points of them) came from people who had previously voted LIB.

Taylor is not a polarised seat, where good swings must come from the minor parties: Swings here are direct and strong.

The big swing to Labor at the most recent Federal election still did not win over all of the voters who have voted Labor at the last two State elections. And at 65.9% the ALP two party preferred vote was much stronger than it had been at previous Federal elections but it is still another 11.5 percentage points short of the result that Trish White achieved at the State election of 2006 – 77.4% ALP on a 2PP basis.

Torrens

Torrens is a north-eastern suburbs electorate defined by its location as much as any other characteristic. It takes in most of the area between Grand Junction Road, Hampstead Road and the River Torrens. About 30% of Torrens voters live in its north-western suburbs of Northfield and Greenacres, which were developed post-war – this area is being revived by very new infill. The voters in this area are in the Federal seat of Adelaide. About 70% of Torrens voters live in the Federal seat of Sturt, in suburbs from Windsor Gardens to Hope Valley developed in the 1960s and 1970s.

The State Member for Torrens is Robyn Geraghty, who has held the seat for the ALP since winning it from the Liberal Party at a by-election in 1994. In the Federal Parliament, the Member for Adelaide is also an ALP Member, Kate Ellis, but the Member for Sturt is a LIB Member, Christopher Pyne.

Like many ALP seats where a large group of the voters are represented in the Federal Parliament by a LIB Member, support for the LIB candidates increases at Federal elections in Torrens, so the seat has been a safe one for Labor at State elections but marginal at Federal elections.

At this most recent Federal election the result was resoundingly Labor. The ALP candidates’ share of the first preference vote grew from 41.6% of first preferences in 2004 to 51.3% in 2007, a rise of 9.7 percentage points. A drop in the LIB vote contributed 8 points and the rest came from minor parties and IND candidates. The Greens made no contribution at all but instead strengthened their vote.

When preferences were distributed the swing in the 2PP vote was also very strong. The ALP 2PP vote increased by 9.3 percentage points from 49.1% in 2004 to 58.4% in 2007.

Table 44: How the voters within the current State seat of Torrens voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 38.4 45.5 10.7 3.8 1.6 46.4 53.6 Federal 1996 40.6 43.7 11.9 2.6 0.9 0.2 49.6 50.4 State 1997 50.4 29.7 15.7 4.3 62.4 37.6 Federal 1998 41.2 32.8 13.2 11.8 1.0 54.1 45.9 Federal 2001 38.8 40.3 11.2 3.5 5.0 1.3 50.9 49.1 State 2002 49.1 32.1 8.4 6.0 4.5 58.6 41.4 Federal 2004 41.6 44.8 2.1 4.9 5.7 0.6 0.3 49.1 50.9 State 2006 59.8 23.8 3.2 6.2 7.0 69.2 30.8 Federal 2007 51.3 36.8 1.3 6.1 4.3 0.3 58.4 41.6

Swings of this order of magnitude were also gained in Torrens at the State election of 2006, when the ALP share of the first preference vote rose by 10.7 percentage points and the ALP 2PP vote rose by 10.6 percentage points.

The Federal result in 2007 brought the ALP 2PP vote up to 58.4% in Torrens, but even with that result the highpoint is almost another 10 points higher at the level achieved at the State election of 2006 – an ALP 2PP of 69.2%.

Unley

Unley is a relatively affluent electorate located just outside the parkland belt surrounding the city of Adelaide. Many of the oldest and most gracious homes in Adelaide are in this electorate. About 75% of Unley’s voters live in the Federal seat of Adelaide, and the remaining 25% are equally likely to be in Sturt (the Glenunga voters) or in Boothby (Fullarton / Myrtle Bank).

The State Member for Unley is David Pisoni (LIB), who took over the seat from the retiring LIB Member at the State election of 2006. In the Federal Parliament the area is represented by the ALP Member for Adelaide (Kate Ellis) and the LIB Members for Sturt (Christopher Pyne) and for Boothby (Andrew Southcott).

Given that the majority of Unley’s voters are represented in the Federal Parliament by an ALP Member it is not surprising to see that at Federal elections the ALP vote improves. And, as in most seats across the State, the ALP first preference vote has been gradually improving over the period. There have not been many big swings to Labor over this period but the seat is now a marginal one, whereas at the beginning of the period it voted more strongly LIB.

It is clear that some of this change has been due to the demise of the Democrats and the growth of the Greens as an alternative minor party.

Table 45: How the voters within the current State seat of Unley voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 25.7 61.6 10.1 1.4 1.2 33.1 66.9 Federal 1996 30.0 57.4 7.7 2.8 0.8 1.3 37.2 62.8 State 1997 24.7 47.0 14.7 0.9 12.6 40.4 59.6 Federal 1998 30.0 53.1 9.7 3.0 3.6 0.5 39.1 60.9 Federal 2001 30.4 52.2 10.1 6.0 1.2 0.1 41.4 58.6 State 2002 31.5 51.7 6.9 5.9 4.1 41.1 58.9 Federal 2004 36.7 51.7 1.4 7.6 1.6 0.1 0.8 44.5 55.5 State 2006 37.7 45.4 3.1 9.8 2.4 1.7 48.9 51.1 Federal 2007 39.5 47.8 1.2 9.7 1.4 0.1 0.4 49.0 51.0

At the Federal election of 2007 the LIB share of the first preference vote dropped by a relatively small amount – 3.9 percentage points from 51.7% in 2004 to 47.8% in 2007. But not all of these votes transferred to the ALP, suggesting that this was not just a case of the ALP attracting voters who had previously supported LIB candidates, but that there was also a degree of disaffection with the LIB candidates or party or campaign. The ALP picked up just 2.8 percentage points – again a very low swing when compared to the results in many other seats. The remaining 1.1 percentage points went to the minor parties – in particular to the Greens, who were the only minor party to record a rise in their vote.

Because of the size of the minor party group in Unley – the Greens won 9.7 percent of first preferences in 2007 – when the preferences were distributed they made a big difference to the outcome in the seat. The swing to Labor in first preferences was on 2.8 percentage points but this was amplified by receiving about 80% of the Greens’ preferences, so the swing to Labor after preferences were distributed was 4.5 percentage points.

A similar result occurred at the State election in 2006 – the LIB share of first preferences dropped by 6.3 percentage points but when preferences were distributed the LIB candidate found that his 2PP vote had dropped by 7.8 percentage points and he was left with a very marginal seat.

Waite

The State electorate of Waite lies entirely within the Federal seat of Boothby. It is a southern suburbs electorate quite close to the city, centred on Mitcham and the foothills, but now also extended to take in Belair.

The area votes solidly LIB at State and Federal elections and is represented in both Parliaments by LIB Members. In the State Parliament the Member for Waite is the

58 Leader of the Opposition, Martin Hamilton-Smith (LIB), who took over the seat on the retirement of the LIB sitting Member in 1997, and in the Federal Parliament the Member for Boothby is Andrew Southcott (also LIB).

Table 46: How the voters within the current State seat of Waite voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 15.0 62.3 20.1 1.0 1.6 26.7 73.3 Federal 1996 24.8 59.1 13.0 2.5 0.6 33.2 66.8 State 1997 23.1 51.1 22.7 3.0 37.5 62.5 Federal 1998 26.4 53.8 14.2 5.6 37.1 62.9 Federal 2001 21.2 51.6 21.2 3.2 1.7 1.1 39.2 60.8 State 2002 24.3 52.6 12.4 5.4 2.9 2.4 38.0 62.0 Federal 2004 34.2 52.6 2.0 7.7 2.5 0.4 0.7 42.8 57.2 State 2006 34.1 46.9 4.5 10.4 4.2 45.9 54.1 Federal 2007 30.1 50.0 1.6 11.6 2.0 0.3 4.3 43.6 56.4

As in many other State seats, the ALP vote in Waite has been gradually strengthening over the period and the LIB vote has been weakening. Nonetheless Waite started the period as a very strong LIB seat and LIB candidates for the area have almost always won the seat outright, before the distribution of preferences. The State election of 2006 was an exception, but the ALP swing was not carried through at the most recent Federal election in 2007.

At the Federal election of 2007 the ALP actually lost ground in Waite, compared to 2004. The ALP share of the first preference vote dropped from 34.2% of all first preferences to 30.1%, a fall of 4.1 percentage points (Waite and Davenport were the only seats in which the ALP first preference vote fell). But the LIB share of first preference votes fell too, by 2.6 percentage points from 52.6% of all first preferences in 2004 to 50% in 2007, so neither major party benefited. Instead the available votes went to the minor parties, and in particular to the Greens.

Once preferences were transferred, the 2007 result in Waite was not quite so bad for either of the major parties. The Liberal candidate would still have won the area, and the ALP candidate did win a small swing on the two party preferred result – 0.8 percentage points, bringing the ALP 2PP vote up from 42.8% on a 2PP basis to 43.6%.

Still, the quiet achievers in this seat were probably the Greens, and it is interesting to see that they were the minor party of choice for disaffected ALP and LIB voters. Then, when Greens preferences were distributed, roughly 80% of them went to the ALP.

The Greens (and before them, the Democrats) have been a constant presence in Waite, much as in Davenport.

59 By comparison with the fall in the ALP first preference vote in 2007, at the State election of 2006 the ALP share of the first preference vote grew by 9.8 percentage points, from 24.3% in 2002 to 34.1% in 2006. Only a bit more than half of this came from the LIB vote: The LIB share of first preferences only dropped by 5.7 percentage points, from 52.6% of all first preferences to 46.9%. The ALP swing in Waite in 2006 drew another 4.1 percentage points from the minor parties, in particular from the Democrats.

While the ALP were drawing on a reservoir of Democrat votes, the Greens were drawing on them as well: the Greens vote increased at that State election by 5 percentage points (from 5.4% to 10.4% of all first preferences) bringing them into the ranks of parties that need to be taken into account.

Once preferences were distributed in 2006, the ALP’s 9.8 percentage point swing in first preferences was magnified by the transfer of a relatively large number of Greens preferences, and the two party preferred swing to the ALP was 13.9 percentage points, bringing the ALP vote in the seat up from 38% in 2004 to 45.9% in 2006. In one election the seat had changed from safe LIB to marginal.

Again like Davenport, Waite is a seat which has not had a large ALP first preference vote but the DEM vote has been strong in these seats in the past and has transferred a lot of votes to the ALP when preferences are counted out. Now that a large part of this support is being won over by the Greens, and the proportion of Greens votes being transferred to the ALP is much higher than ever was the case under the Democrats, the ALP vote in these seats is leveraged to a much greater extent.

West Torrens

Table 47: How the voters within the current State seat of West Torrens voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 30.7 50.1 4.8 1.2 2.7 10.5 41.7 58.3 Federal 1996 39.1 48.9 7.0 2.2 0.5 2.3 45.6 54.4 State 1997 39.8 35.8 13.1 0.4 9.6 54.5 45.5 Federal 1998 44.6 39.2 7.0 2.4 6.7 0.1 52.9 47.1 Federal 2001 43.6 41.2 8.5 3.8 2.9 53.0 47.0 State 2002 46.6 35.4 6.0 6.0 2.7 3.2 58.6 41.4 Federal 2004 47.0 40.8 1.3 5.9 2.3 0.4 2.3 55.0 45.0 State 2006 57.6 26.6 3.1 8.0 4.7 68.3 31.7 Federal 2007 51.6 36.2 1.6 7.5 1.8 0.7 0.6 59.7 40.3

The State seat of West Torrens runs south of the River Torrens from the city to the sea. It takes in all of the suburbs that are neighbours of the Adelaide Airport. About 10% of West Torrens voters live in the Federal seat of Adelaide (these people would

60 live in Mile End or Thebarton) and the vast majority are in the Federal seat of Hindmarsh. The seat votes Labor at both State and Federal elections and is represented in both Parliaments by Labor Members. In the State Parliament the Member for West Torrens is Tom Koutsantonis (ALP) who took over the seat from the retiring ALP Member in 1997; in the Federal Parliament the area is represented by Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, ALP) and Kate Ellis (Adelaide, ALP).

The ALP first preference vote in West Torrens has been growing steadily over the period at both State and Federal elections. In fact there has not been an appreciable difference in the ALP vote between State and Federal elections in the area, although the big swing to Labor at the State election of 2006 was not replicated in 2007.

At the Federal election of 2007 the ALP share of the first preference vote grew by 4.6 percentage points (from 47% in 2004 to 51.6% in 2007). This was exactly equalled by the drop in support for the LIB candidates – the LIB share of the first preference vote dropped by 4.6 percentage points from 40.8% in 2004 to 36.2% in 2007. The minor parties were unaffected. Once preferences were distributed the 4.6 percentage point swing translated neatly into a 4.7 percentage point rise in the ALP two party preferred vote, bringing it up from 55.0% in 2004 to 59.7% in 2007. The area would clearly have elected an ALP Member to the Federal Parliament, with very strong support.

Still, there seems to be room for movement. At the State election in 2006 there was a swing to Labor more than twice that size, which took votes from former LIB voters and also from the minor parties, and which resulted in an ALP 2PP vote of 68.3%, 8.6 percentage points higher again than the Federal 2PP result. The high point for Labor in this area is very clearly the State election result of 2006, and the ALP 2PP result of 68.3%

Wright

Table 48: How the voters within the current State seat of Wright voted at State and Federal elections from 1993 to 2007. Election First preference votes (booth votes only) Two party preferred ALP LIB DEM Greens Family Other ALL result First parties IND (booth + dec votes) ALP LIB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

State 1993 43.6 45.9 7.6 2.9 49.6 50.4 Federal 1996 40.5 45.5 9.0 2.2 0.7 2.1 48.6 51.4 State 1997 43.5 35.4 13.8 1.4 5.9 54.6 45.4 Federal 1998 37.0 42.8 10.0 9.4 0.9 46.9 53.1 Federal 2001 36.1 47.9 9.9 1.7 4.3 44.2 55.8 State 2002 45.9 38.1 6.9 6.8 2.2 53.3 46.7 Federal 2004 42.6 46.6 1.4 2.8 5.0 0.6 0.9 47.0 53.0 State 2006 58.5 26.6 1.9 3.7 7.0 2.3 65.3 34.7 Federal 2007 51.5 39.5 1.2 3.5 3.5 0.9 56.3 43.7

This State seat has two fairly distinct communities – it takes in the Salisbury suburbs east of Main North Road, and almost all of Golden Grove except Greenwith. The communities sit back-to-back, with the Salisbury suburbs oriented across Main North Road to Salisbury centre, and the Golden Grove suburbs oriented towards their own Village. Wright lies entirely within the Federal seat of Makin.

The Member for Wright in the State Parliament is the ALP Member, Jennifer Rankine, who won the seat from the LIB sitting Member in 1997. For the period covered by the tables, Makin has been represented by a LIB Federal MP, but as a result of the recent federal election it is now represented by the newly-elected Federal ALP Member, Tony Zappia.

Wright is one of the seats which has returned an ALP Member to the State Parliament but would have elected a LIB Member to the Federal Parliament for all of this period until the 2007 Federal election. Labor candidates have received a bit more support at State elections than at Federal elections, and the LIB vote has been stronger at Federal elections than at State elections. Nonetheless, at this most recent Federal election the area would have elected the Labor candidate quite easily – with a majority of first preference votes alone (The State sitting Member achieved that level of support at the 2006 State election too).

At the most recent Federal election in 2007 there was a rise in the share of the first preference vote won by the ALP candidates, of 8.9 percentage points (from 42.6% in 2004 to 51.5% in 2007). The LIB share of first preference votes dropped by 7.1 percentage points so almost all of these new Labor voters were LIB voters who had changed their minds. Few of them had voted LIB at the previous State election though – at that election the LIB share of first preference votes was much lower, at just 26.6%. People who had previously voted for the minor parties contributed a small amount too – about another 1.8 percentage points.

This result is just what happened at the State election in this area in 2006 – the ALP won a large swing in first preferences, and while almost all them came from people who had previously voted LIB a few of them also came from the minor parties. In 2006 the ALP share of first preferences increased by 12.6 percentage points, the LIB share dropped by 11.5 percentage points and the minor parties contributed a small share – about 0.9 percentage points.

The ALP highpoint for this electorate remains the 2006 State election result of 65.3% to the ALP on a two party preferred basis.

Summary and Conclusions.

In almost every seat we have seen a general pattern...

The ALP share of first preference votes has been growing steadily at every election, but there was a big swing to the ALP at the most recent State election in 2006 and a big swing towards the ALP also at the most recent Federal election in 2007.

The LIB share of first preference votes has been falling.

The DEM vote is now a shadow of its former self and the Greens have taken over a large proportion – usually more than half – of the DEM voters.

62 Where there has been a LIB Federal Member, the LIB vote has been stronger at Federal elections than at State elections (Sometimes this has been the case even where the Federal representative has been an ALP Member).

Most seats show quite direct swings, where votes transfer readily between ALP and LIB candidates. However there are some seats where the voters seem to be so committed that they will transfer their votes to minor parties, but not readily to the opposing major party. I have called these seats polarised and they include the Labor seats of Norwood, Ramsay and Port Adelaide as well as the LIB seats of Schubert and Stuart. These seats are not all very safe seats (Norwood and Stuart are quite marginal). It will be interesting to see whether this polarised voting behaviour lasts for long, and also whether polarised seats are more likely to provide the pre-conditions for a challenge from an IND, NAT, or perhaps Greens, candidate.